If someone calculates the probability of something occurring to be 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001, then many people will say that the chance is "zero" when they really mean it to be "virtually zero."
Going the other way, as with DNA matching, one might say that the criminal "is" guilty because the probability of evidence pointing to the criminal is .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. Technically speaking, the language is in accurate for the same reason.
And here we come to a dichotomy that I see very often. When people are taking a positive view on an outcome, when they apply this kind of interpretation they may say that there's a 1 in 10 quadrillion chance that the evidence does not point to the criminal. The positive thinkers here will focus on the 10 quadrillion. If they can't dispute the evidence, which would lower the 10 quadrillion side of the equation, the only recourse for the negative thinkers involves pointing to the 1, saying, So you're telling me there is a chance?
In general, we reject this approach because it ignores serious discussions of evidence and sounds like a cop-out. The only rational approach is to address the evidence head-on, that which led to the 10 quadrillion finding. This, I have found, is one of the easier way to detect a skeptic from a pseudo skeptic, and a reasoned believer from one who accepts things on faith, regardless of the evidence, if necessary.
I have no opinion on whether a universe preceded this one, by the way. I don't care. All I know is that a lot of people throw around "is" and "is not", 1 or 0, when it is more correct to say something like, It is "very, very likely" or "very likely not this or that." That's probably what you're picking up on here.