I suspect you're being willfully dense. The theory you paint would be composite of other assumptions (involving lighting, forces, or stars, e.g.?) which in tur

I suspect you're being willfully dense. The theory you paint would be composite of other assumptions (involving lighting, forces, or stars, e.g.?) which in turn are either in contradiction with observation (implying Pr=0%), or rely on further (very low probability) assumptions in order to avoid contradiction. If that's not true, then you've just given a strange name to the empty set of assumptions, which is the null hypothesis; and the null hypothesis DOES get epistemological privilege.