I seem to recall you never got around to rebutting it then either so I think it's in rather bad form to use it again with your having done it so recently.

You have absolutely no basis to be discussing the probability of any given thing considered 'super'natural, which is to say, not actually subject, in whole or part, to natural laws. You might as well be discussing the probability of a perpetual motion machine or faster than light travel, they pretty much are or aren't possible, and by known laws they essentially aren't, so the odds are basically 0 or 1, not 0.00000000000000001

You never calculated the probability but you assert it as a fact, and I really think if you're going to do that you should at least produce a shell framework, a Drake's Equation equivalent, before bringing it into play, because absent that you leave nothing for anyone to rebut and are simply using 'Argument by Assertion'