The inquisitive nature of the human mind has been evident from the very beginning of time. After all, it was Lucifer playing upon Eve's inquisitive nature that got us into the fallen predicament the world finds itself in today. Inquisition, nonetheless, has driven innovations ranging from the archaic wheel for a simple cart to the Sojourner Mars rover and beyond. Each step along the way has been possible only through the utility of the gift of observation. Not only was observation key to Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter in the early 7th century, but it was also key to Walther Flemming's discovery of cell division in the late 9th century. However, it was a 20th-century philosopher of science named Karl Popper who modernized the scientific method and revolutionized the process of scientific discovery through the methodology of falsification. Karl Popper (902994) believed all inquisitions (theories) fall into one of two categories-scien- tific or nonscientific theories. Scientific theories, he argued, should be distinguished by their hypothesis formulations, allowing for falsification. That is, any theory should be put forward in such a way that it can be proven false. Popper used the analogy of the black swan to explain his idea. Beginning from the hypothesis: "all swans are white," no matter how many white swans can be observed, one cannot prove that all swans are white. There is the possibility that one has not actually observed all swans in existence. However, if you found one single black swan, then that single black swan would disprove the hypothesis: "All swans are white." That is, since the hypothesis could be falsified in this way, it is considered a valid scientific hypothesis. Popper's criteria of falsifiability soon became the core principle of the sci- entific method. Following its inception, no scientific hypothesis or theory was considered legitimate if it could not be falsified. Today, falsifiability is so intricately interwoven into the fabric of the scientific method that the seeming inability to falsify string theory has created an ongoing firestorm of debate regarding its legitimacy as a scientific theory. Setting string theory aside, all other theories, then, can state whatever can be imagined; none can claim to be legitimate scientific theories unless they can possibly be falsified through observation. In the end, the criteria of falsification is a safeguard against claims, both reasonable and absurd, from being put forward that cannot be disproven. Having now touched upon the criteria of falsifiability in the scientific method, enter God. Of course, it is no rare thing to hear comments such as "Science has proven God does not exist." In fact, it is not at all uncommon to listen to critics of theism throw out words like science, evolution, proof, God, and does not exist, all in the same sentence. The problem, however, is best put by the cliché "You cannot put God in a test tube," which is precisely necessary to falsify the claim that God does exist and thereby "prove" atheism true. Scientifically falsifying the claim that God exists, and thereby "disproving" God, is logically impossible because the direct observability and knowability of a hidden God does not allow for the scientific method to collect objective evidence in order to potentially falsify the claim. In a sense, it is no different than scientifically disproving that unicorns exist, which cannot be scientifically done. If God cannot be experimentally observed, then the scientific method, including the criteria of falsifiability, is useless. That does not mean that God does not exist; it simply means that God's existence can neither be "proven" nor "disproven" by the scientific method. Nor by the same measure can atheism be "proven," or "disproven" either. Even so, it does not mean that an evidence-based probability concerning the existence of God cannot be strongly suggested (the power of logic is also a formidable tool often brought to bear on the debate concerning God. Interestingly, both the scientific community and theologians are in general agreement. That is because consummate scientists acknowledge that the sciences are not equipped to answer questions of God's existence and therefore refuse to comment, as scientists. Similarly, the physicist Steven Hawking once said, "One can't prove that God doesn't exist." So, it seems we are in a conun- drum of sorts. Since the existence of God cannot be "proven" or "disproven," what can be said about the matter from either side of the debate? What if it were that the elegance of mathematics could be harnessed to give a statistical probability of God's existence being true, and concurrently a statistical probability that atheism is false? After all, statistical probability touches every aspect of our lives through the decisions we make multiple times each day. What is the probability that I will have an adverse reaction to a new medication? What is the probability that my car will not start this morning? What is the probability that the airplane I board will crash before I reach my destination? Statistical probability can also play a role in helping to determine the probability of such complex questions as God’s existence.