In article , greywolf42
writes:

The probability of a hypothetical event (the Big Bang) can never be greater
than the probability of the most likely theory that supports the existence
of that event. See my discussion of the class of theories called 'Big
Bang.'

I'm Sherlock Holmes. I discover a body on the way home. He's dead,
Jim. After some discussion with the police, local residents etc, Watson
explains several possible theories about the man's death. Some of them
seem more probable than others. In any case, the probability that the
man is dead (1) is higher than the probability that even the most likely
theory of his demise is true. Also, if I rule out one of these
theories, even the most likely one, through brilliant deduction, he's
still dead. Even if I rule them all out.

It is quite common in science for a phenomenon to be observed before the
underlying mechanism is understood: Mendel's hereditary experiments,
continental drift, radioactivity. Initially, some wrong explanations
were advanced for these. Nevertheless, these phenomena were always MORE
certain than the best theory of the time. You have it completely
backwards.

The universe is independent of our discussions. If I say that my new
theory is the big-bang theory plus the Moon being made of green cheese,
refuting the latter says nothing about the former, unless I somehow
show that the former must DEPEND on the latter.

I strongly recommend that you read the book by Peter Coles and George
Ellis in order to understand why 0.2 or 0.3, in this context, is not
"significantly different" than 1.