(In response to the question: "How can you believe in a god who is supernatural when there is a 90% chance that he doesn’t exist?")

Your numbers numbers are grounded in nothing. But I’ll point to numbers and ground them in some kind of reality.

I would say its 99% to near 100% that Jesus lived. Bart Ehrman would probably come close to agreeing with me on that one. Ehrman says the alternative theories are conspiracy theory rather than a fair and balanced approach to academic and informed history. (not to mention the extra-Biblical proof of Jesus’ existence)

I would say its 99% to near !00% that a spiritual being or Designer/Creator God created the world. Even atheists admit that the Big Bang, the creation of organic, Evolution, and the human mind all are miraculous or near miraculous events.

(You might remember the quote about someone “monkeying” with reality to get it right, but there are a number of similar quotes from agnostic and atheistic scientists, not to mention dozens of Christian and otherwise religious scientists)

The overlap of those two truths is the nexus of reality.

I could go on—..

If there are no spiritual beings and no divinity and we aren’t spiritual beings there is zero naturalistic basis for freedom, rationality, truth, human dignity, meaning, purpose, or ethics. Also, mind, conscience, and consciousness tend to loose their grounding, not to mention identity and personality lose their grounding as well.

Everything in a world of “we’re just colliding chemistry and physics” means jack squat. Its a philosophy of absolute nothingness that ends in nihilism and dehumanization. Its a philosophical dead end. You cant’ get something akin to the US Constitution from such a philosophy. Only by looking at the ideas of natural law and the Imagio Dei (made in the Image of God).

That means naturalism is a dead end for a philosophical, value, and ethical basis of our political and personal values. It can’t find the underlying value of humans. When you say “ we’re all just atoms” without acknowledging the larger realities of human personality and identity which naturalism fundamentally denies, silences, or erases you stack the deck in favor of a dehumanized and utterly stripped down view of man and women (bare bones).

No wonder survival and sex—rather than a robust understanding of human desire and emotion is the end result.

Or lets look at how the values of Jesus Christ could pretty much end every conflict on the planet and the very roots of those conflicts in less than 2 seconds. (envy, pride, ego, are all idols that Christ as a person calls into question, and are the root cause of conflict and the vast majority of the problems of the world). But people are too interested in ego to step back and see the healing transformation that would instantly occur if we actually gave those values a try.

For more on why naturalism is a poor basis for rights and ethics, I suggest reading this post which details some of the history of this philosophy in ethics: Nathan Ketsdever's answer to What are some philosophers who have argued in favor of morality being tied to religion, and some who have argued against that?

This is the next logical read after that, as it demonstrates the contrast between the two viewpoints: If the Bible was used to control people by the government, what would it be doing to the people?