Since we are talking about what is more likely to have occurred, we can safely discard "C" and "D", because they deal with belief and the ability to discover what occurred, not what is more likely. Thus, they don't answer the question. As between "A" and "B", what is more "likely" is "B", assuming that you mean the Judeo-Christian God, all-powerful, all knowing, etc. As a logical proposition, choice "B" only requires the appearance of random processes, while choice "A" requires the existence of an infinite being capable of anything and everything, including all that in encompassed by choice "B". Since we have some inklings as to what is required for "B", under the study of biology, physics, etc., and absolutely nothing on how the being described in "A" could even exist, let alone direct things, "B" is "more likely." (I am not saying that this is some attempt to "prove" that God doesn't exist {as I've been accused of in the past}, I am talking about likelihoods, here.)
Which is more likely to have caused us to be here now as we observe ourselves and the universe around us? (A) Creation by G-d in Six Days (B) Initial Creation of some archtypes (such as space-time, physics, etc and the ideations of plant, planet, star, sun, insect, animal and man) and constant tuning by G-d thereafter (C) A God-free universe and physics just popped up last nano-second in this condition (D) God-free evolution from some very primitive initial condition
You seem to be mixing cosmology, abiogenesis and biological evolution. As discussed in question one, we can eliminate the "God" theory on the likelihood question. By definition, such a God must be able to create the natural conditions which are presented as an alternate, so they are a subset of the belief in God. So whatever basis you have to believe in the existence of a God that can create the natural conditions can simply be applied to the natural conditions themselves. Thus, and again, strictly in terms of probability, that makes the God-free answers, as a logical matter, more likely. So that leaves "C" or "D." Of these, I am going to assume that you mean by "C" that the entire universe: existence, memories, history, etc., have only existed for a nano-second, and that our belief that it has lasted longer is a mere artifact of the fact that the universe blinked into existence with the appearance that these memories are real. There is no evidence for that. On the other hand, with "D", there is plentiful evidence that the universe has existed for a long, long time, and that evolution has guided the diversification of life on earth. So I would say that "D" is the most likely.
I have to leave this discussion for some indefinite time. Just to note that you chose a "belief system" yet appear to be unable to call it what it is. In the last question C and D are more or less equal. Your choice of C and exclusion of D indicates you are not a solid believer in random processes by the way, at least so I suspect.
Was my first question. You answered "B". You rejected C and D because you claim they "safely" don't answer the question "of what occurred, not what is more likely" -- that's your wording. You argue that A requires G-d and random process, and B only random process, therefore the more "logically" likely is B.
Well I can see what algebraic reduction you applied -- that is by you you call in this specific case "logic". While systematic, it is not what is generally called logic.
It is a logic biased by design to exclude G-d, by claiming that G-d is solely the province of belief and not experience or reason. For example many would assert that you cannot have existance without a Creator, nor process without a Designer.
It gets back to an early discussion on this thread about geometry. To create a logical algebra (aka symbolic proof system) about geometry one must first accept as a postulate outside the proof-system a certain small basis set -- that lines parallel at one point never met at another, that the interior angles of a triangle are 180 (euclidean) or over 180 (speherical) or under 180 (hyperbolic). etc. There are various combinations of what constitute the aprior postulates, but there have to be some.
Set theory is similar. Is the null set a set? Is the set of all sets a set?
Thus if you wanted to be most generally logical -- you might have said "Can't be detemined". But you did not -- by that you added a godfree apriori postulate.
However like you, I too, would reject "Don't know". It's a disingenuous cowards' response.
No evidence? There's no evidence against it. It is one of the possible states of the universe, and as equally possible as any other.