Well exactly, and since life has occurred, and natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, I am constantly amazed that theists believe violating Occam’s razor, by adding an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstion using inexplicable magic, is a more probable explanation than an as yet unknown natural event?
I’m no expert on probability, but it seems to me that adding unevidenced and inexplicable claims makes your conclusion less probable?
Or am I missing something?