Evidence and probability go hand in hand?

[Edwardo Piet]

There is zero evidence for the supernatural, doesn't that make the supernatural improbable?
Or is that JUST because of the complexity thing?
I heard Carl Sagan said, and apparently he had took it from someone else, something like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is that what you mean Adrian?
I just thought that because there's ZERO evidence for the supernatural that is at least partly connected to its improbability.

I guess it really comes down to what you define as evidence. For example, String theory has no evidence at all, other than particle physics and mathematics predicting it. So is String theory automatically "improbable"? No. The whole thing about improbability is you need to know something about the event in order to deduce it's improbability.

For example, if I toss a coin, it is 50% improbable that the coin will land on heads. I can only make this assertion because I know that:

1) The coin has 2 sides (2 possible outcomes)
2) The coin is evenly weighted (we assume this for the maths)
3) The coin never lands on it's side

Take something that has no evidence, for example: GOD. What do we know about God in order to make a reasonable probability prediction about it? Nothing. If we are talking about a certain God in particular then yes we might have some additional information, but the whole "God" idea on it's own does not have any evidence, and so it is impossible to put an improbability value on it.

So what makes you think the whole "God" idea is so improbable if you can't estimate his improbability due to lack of evidence? Complexity?