We're at a stalemate on this one then, because God can do whatever He wants and we have no way of refuting it or tracing it. So nothing we can do, including 99.44%, is good enough.
Now, you may say that to a person of faith, God is an explanation that can be invoked for anything. That's true, but it's also true for happenstance.
Why does light behave as it does? A person of faith says it's because God made it to behave that way. An atheist says it just happens to behave that way.
God can do whatever He wants, however He wants, and leave no trace, or traces that we don't understand.
You don't believe that, and I understand that. I'm just noting that we come from two very different worldviews!
So then I presume you could never vote to convict on a jury, because however convincing the evidence and the prosecution's theory of the crime, the alternative theory of miraculous intervention would always exist.
Or you would vote to convict, in which case you're willing to take the risk of unjustly ruining another human being's life, based on the presumption a miracle didn't occur, but you're not willing to accept a scientific origin of species, based on the same presumption. Strange priorities you have.
You don't believe that, and I understand that. I'm just noting that we come from two very different worldviews
Mine appears to be self-consistent.