Quote Originally Posted by The Green Reaper
I agree that this seems like a logical hypothesis from our limited human perspective. I do not believe it is plausible that the religious ideals of a god had anything to do with it though.

Regarding the so called improbability of the universe we do not have enough information to make an accurate mathematical prediction. How many universes are there? How many times has it potentially expanded and contracted allowing for many different resulting expressions of the energy in the universe. We dont even know with certainty the size of the universe.

Essentially we still do not know why we are here or even if there is a comprehendable reason. It could perhaps be equivalent to an ant learning calculus its just too complex for us to presently (and perhaps ever) understand. The ideas of gods were and still are easy and conforting explanations of the unexplainable drawn upon human desires and emotion. In my opinion the plausibility of a being with thought processes and anything to do with human desires, emotions and activities while a pleasant thought is not a plausible explanation.
I would say that God/Tao is omnipotent, or at least its actions are, but that it is sentient in a way that is incompressible to human beings. Also, I take an absurdist viewpoint on the Universe in relation to mankind.

Actually, we do have enough information and understanding of physics to make an accurate prediction about the plausibility of the Universe. We do not, however, have an accurate or complete understanding of Quantum physics.

Also, the Universe doesn't expand and contract, it is continues to expand. Our Universe is continuing to expand, and building speed. The Universe will likely continue this action until Heat Death, not the Big Crunch.

Your hypothesis as to the where the belief in God originates, is also inadequate and an example of pseudo-profundity. Where the belief in a Creator originates from is unknown. Speculation, purely.

The fact of the matter is absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

P.S.
In answer to your query, Higher4Hockey, I may have been rambling; I tend to do that. I quit smoking cigarettes, so my posts likely reflect my addled-minded brain, ATM. Without cigarettes, I tend to become confused and/or go on tangents.