That would be the job of the one claiming that that entity exists.
OK.
I'll define "God" as The Creator who set into motion the universe by some unknown means. He may or may not be conscious and there may or may not have been time or space before.
Go!
You can't even calculate it to be zero, because there is nothing there to do calculations with.
I agree, but then I wouldn't round my estimation of the probability of "God' to zero. I believe the multiverse obviously from math and is an impossibility by definition according to common sense, our understanding of reality, and every thing known including observation. It is only "possible" at all because we are freaks in the natural world and out of step with it. Religion doesn't suffer this.
All I can do is is consider the facts and evidence at hand.
When humans were like us and lacked modern science ANY definition of "God" were possible but science has "excluded" many possible definitional characteristics. We certainly know nobody can show He can be summed at will or enticed to commit any known action. He won't smite on command. We can be fairly confident He isn't corporeal or omnipotent in any way we comprehend (can God make an object so large He Himself can't move it?).
"No means to calculate" is taken by many people as "non-existence" but I do agree with you there is no means.
Not upto me to define what gods are. I'm not claiming any god exists.
I'm not sure I understand this... ...or maybe I do. Like everybody you can only see what you expect to see. You certainly don't expect to see the Hand of God so everything is compartmentalized into models and beliefs that exclude the possibility of the existence of God, but far worse is this exact same process excludes the existence of everything you don't know. This makes it exceedingly difficult for you and everyone else to see anomalies whose observation is the chief way that science progresses. You and all the rest of us are retarded by our beliefs. You might say "but scientists see anomalies all the time". No! They rarely see them but it seems common because the event of seeing what we don't understand is most likely to result in progress the more training the observer has. Most of us just cuss when the apple hits us on the head and curse our luck or the vengeful gods.
It is up to you define everything that exists whether it is observable or not. You must look look between your models and between your thoughts rather than just at what you already believe. I know this is an impossibility for most so I'm not suggesting that you are less of a scientist or person if you can't. I'm merely suggesting that there is FAR MORE we don't know than we do and not being able to see it is not beneficial and is keeping physics in the 1920's.
The real problem here is education. They don't teach scientific metaphysics any longer. They don't teach math correctly. They teach things that aren't true and aren't founded in experiment like deduction and "laws of nature". We need more specialists trained in multiple areas and especially generalists. We need a means to communicate more accurately so we can determine what we already know. The world is a mess with almost as much fake science as fake news while all the data to know what's going on is never printed because it's top secret or never gathered because we believe we already know. The economy hums along at about 4% efficiency as billions go without.
