To put it out there before I confuse anyone, I do believe in God.
I already knew this since you've said it before...where was the confusion even supposed to come from anyway, did you say something that would lead me to believe you didn't?
Here is where I find fault with the argument of proposed scientific "theories" being superior over what you might consider unfounded beliefs (religion):
First of all putting theories in quotes does nothing to impair the factual nature of them nor do they help your point in the slightest. It's not so much that they are superior, the two aren't even on the same scale as each other. The latter is epistemologically empty, adheres to no reliable principles and doesn't resemble real knowledge in any sort of way. Compare the Germ theory of disease with the idea that illnesses are cause by evil demons/spirits as was commonly thought (and still is by some people), personally I consider the latter to be more than just unfounded but like most religious claims outright ridiculous with no substance to support it. Perhaps you give both ideas equal weight though.
although a theory indeed is based off reasonable speculation through physical, observable evidence
No it's not reasonable speculation, you're thinking of a hypothesis. Theories are what I said before "well supported postulates that are empirical, measurable and adhere to basic scientific priciples such as consistency, parsimony, and falsifiability."
(I assume when you compare theories to "creation myths" you mean evolution vs. creationism in general),
Hehehe I have to say your assumption is pretty far off considering the fact that I didn't mention evolution even once whereas I talked about cosmology quite a bit. It seems you personally wanted to go on a tangent about evolution and used my post as an excuse to do so despite it having nothing to do with anything I said. I wasn't particularly interested in such a discussion at all but I'll bite for your benefit. It's my day off anyway...
what people tend to discount is the factor of probability.
That's because probability itself does not decide if something is true or not, it uses mathematics and logic to determine the likelihood of any given event or series of events. Likelihood and truth are not the same thing, an event can be calculated to be extremely unlikely and yet turn out to be true especially when random processess are involved. Also I don't think you're using that term in a proper mathematical sense but rather you find it so improbable out of an intuitive sense or because you think it doesn't feel right. That's something completely irrelavant however as that feeling can be caused by either ignorance or cognitive dissonance.
That's not even how it works anyway, a postulate is deemed true or not based on the amount of evidence and the quality of evidence that supports it. In that regard the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming in both amount and quality, it's literally as good as any theory or law that has ever existed. In comparison for all religious accounts of life, anywhere from Judasim to Aztec mythology, the amount of evidence supporting them isn't few or low in quality it's literally nonexistent. That said when you talk about evolution I take it you're actually refering to Abiogenesis since that's only context that would even make sense given what you're talking about. They aren't the same thing and your contention seems to be with the latter more than anything.
Sure, there's no way to test the probability that God exists in truth:
Why is that okay then, if you're going to criticize something for being improbable the fact that that is off the scale of probability all together should be even more alarming.
what is the probability that a sentient species with free-will and the capacity to even CONSIDER their origins occurs?
I'd say the entropy rate is lower than you seem to think, but since you're such a fan of probability theory I'll let you calculate that yourself. Show me the stochastic process you used as well, I'm good at maths so I don't mind it and I'd be interested is such a thing anyway. Also you realize that no matter what view you subscribe to the probability is going to be low regardless. Your line of thinking seems to suggest that between something that has a low probability of occuring but a lot of evidence to support it and something else that also has a low probability of occuring but no evidence at all to support it that you would go with the latter which is almost nonsensical reasoning.
Our own evolution was not a "likely" event in any sense of the word. In essence, that probability is so tiny that it's basically as probable as there existing a higher power that created everything anyway
Not quite, for one thing you earlier said there was no way to calculate the probability of higher power to begin with which makes that statement false by default. Ignoring the obvious false dilemma here more the two ideas are not equally likely because the evidence that supports them are not equal or even close to such. The latter introduces an unprecedented and untenable aspect, which is the supernatural and it has no merit to it whatsoever. Supernatural causes have never been found to have been an acurate explanation for anything in the entirety of human history, there are plenty of things that were thought to be of supernatural cause from neurological disorders to extreme weather but were later revealed to have been naturally occuring phenomena explained by empirical observations. The reverse has never been true, even when one view in science has been shown to be wrong it has been replaced by improved more informed science...not once has a previously scientific view been revealed to actually have been the result of supernatural or magical occurence and supernatural claims in this regard have no more substance than any fictional or imaginary claim ever made.
Comparably evolution has it's basis in things far more realistic and well documented such as the fields of Molecular Biology, Genetics, Genomics, Paleontology, Biochemistry, and Organic Chemistry. It would be one thing if we were made of an unknown magical substance that we couldn't identify but that isn't the case, our chemical makeup, the carbon based molecules we processes and the organic compounds that we're composed of are all natural things. I'll take real knowledge over superstitious guesswork anyday...What is your contention with those fields anyway, specifically the first and last of them?
I'd say it's not unreasonable to think that, considering the probability that "mankind" miraculously evolves from bacteria
Miraculously evolving from bacteria sounds like outright speciousness but that's beside the point I suppose since that could be down to bad phraseology on your part. Technically any idea about the origins of life can be considered reasonable and conversely any idea can be made to sound ridiculous, that's just boils down individual preference as some people take to certain ideas more readily than other ones. That's irrelavant though, how reasonable or unreasonable something sounds to any person has no bearing on the truth of that thing. That instead is indicated by the amount of evidence that supports that idea.
nevermind the fact that living bacteria had to develop SOMEHOW
Hehe nevermind the fact that your god had to develop somehow, and special pleading fallacies won't cut it. Personally I don't support any idea related to abiogenesis nor anything supernatural, since there isn't enough evidence yet to back them. My view is more I don't know which I find preferable to just making some **** up or believeing some random nonsense.
At any rate let's look at that idea and yours; we know factually that bacteria exist this is indisputable, we know factually that organic compounds exist currently and existed prior to and independent of life, we know that all living organisms are composed of organic compounds, we have factual knowledge that life can change forms based on mutations, radiation, or enviornmental pressure etc. I can continue but I think you can see where I'm going with this, that view at the very least has some merit even though incomplete. Now let's compare what we factually know about your god...nothing, at all. Not one single claim about your god or any for that matter can be substantiated to even a minimal degree. Now being skeptical of abiogenesis through natural occurences is not a problem, in fact it makes sense since the evidence for that is not yet sound since the fields we use to study that are all relatively new but to be open to something supernatural that has far less merit to go on is nothing short of astounding.
that there was probably some guiding force (eg: God or whatever religious figure you'd prefer) that led to the eventual development of mankind.
Again what you said isn't unreasonable per se, it's possible a deity was responsible (though it'd be unlikely to be your god specifically) just as much as it's possible that it was extra-dimensional aliens that visted our planet from the 7th dimension and brought life to this planet. The ideas themselves aren't unreasonable but there is no evidence of a guiding force or nothing to suggest that such a thing ever existed.
Humans have been successful for a variety of reasons, we are apex predators (I mean this relatively obviously there species that can kill and eat us but none that prey on us regularly and I'm excluding viruses and parasites even though there are plenty that kill us as their way of life since we aren't prey so to speak) which is far from a unique trait in the animal kingdom in fact nearly every ecosystem has one or several but those that are considered as such have great chances to thrive, in addition we're omnivores and have adapable tastes even evolving the ability to digest lactose and the genus has learned the ability to cook food prior to humans even becoming a species; We're social creatures like ants, bees, killer whales and elephants etc. but we have the high level of cognition, communication skills, bidpedalism, and intelligence that is common in great apes, furthermore of the four genera that form the Hominidae family Homo (which modern humans belong to) is the most intelligent and intelligence is phenotypic trait that is extemely beneficial for the fitness of any genera so it passes on throughout the evolution of one species to the next and becomes increasingly more intelligent over time. Even as far back as our earlier ancestors our genera had become the most intelligent in the animal kingdom and our trademark creativity, problem solving ability, curiosity began to show. Once we developed the capacity for language which was more advanced than previous communication abilities and the ability to use abstract reasoning there was no stopping us at that point. We can track the history of Homo sapiens and their activity pretty well, that's basically what Archaeology is and there's never been a guiding force of any sort recorded. Unless you buy into some of those ancient alien ideas but there's no evidence of that either.
and I don't see any theoretical explanations for that
Well regardless of what you see, several hypothesis for abiogenesis do exist. Though you seem like the type to go for confirmation bias quite a bit so I'm not surprised.
I prefer to think that we didn't get lucky down to an almost impossible figure.
That's just bias on your part then (and maybe a bit of wish fulfillment) but it has nothing to do with objective reality which is what determines wheter or not it's true not personal preference. I don't really have a preference either way, though a creator deity and abiogenesis are not mutually exclusive in the first place ironically.
But mankind's gotta have had help from somewhere! We're too worthless a race to have made it this far ourselves anyway.
Again this like mostly everything you're saying is just a statement without merit, there's no factual basis to what you're saying just an unsubstantiated opinion on your part with nothing to back it. We're worthless based on what exactly?
it's hard to say evolution itself isn't a "creation story" considering the probability factors involved.
Hehehe not at all, for one evolution isn't a story at all in the first place just description real life phenomena and more importanly evolution refers biological changes that occur in already existing organisms and doesn't say anything about creation or the origin of life to begin with. Again you confusing evolution with abiogenesis, calling evolution a creation story is like calling genetics a creation story and just reeks of ignorance.