It may leave you as a deist...but it most assuredly does not leave me as mostly atheist. I'd sooner become a Trump supporter than an atheist...and I would not become a Trump supporter if you held a gun to my head. — Frank Apisa

Glad to hear it (on both counts).

I’m aware of the argument but I do not see how it makes the case that infinite regresses are impossible. A first element presupposes finitude, so why would we apply it to an infinite regress? I agree that a finite regress would require a first element, but disagree that an infinite regress does. — NOS4A2

If you imagine the negative integers:

{..., -5, -4, -3, -2, -1}

Then its clear that you can start at -1 and define the whole sequence because you have a starting point.

However, you cannot start at '...' and define the whole sequence because you have no starting point.

Such is the case with cause and effect, the cause defines the effect so the cause must pre-exist the effect. An infinite finite regress has no initial cause. So each subsequent cause cannot be defined, just like the way it is impossible to derive the negative numbers from '...'.

So then to what do we owe the reality of the first element, a first tuner, if not an anterior one? Sure a finite regress all elements owe their reality to the first element, but I cannot see how that is true of an infinite one. — NOS4A2

The argument is that infinite regresses are impossible. So that leads to there must only be finite regresses in reality. At the base of each such regress, there must be an uncaused cause; there is no other logical explanation.

To be uncaused means to be beyond time (there is no 'before' for a timeless thing - it has no cause).

There are quite a few ways to show that time must have a start (eg do you believe a greater than finite number of days has elapsed?) and if that is true, then logic points to the reality of something atemporal.

Consider the possibility of an elephant in my backyard. There are exactly two possibilities (elephant, ~elephant), and (per your claims) we should ignore evidence (e.g. no elephants have been sighted in the vicnity), so that suggests we should consider the probabilty of an elephant in the backyard as 50%. That's silly. — Relativist

But you have statistical evidence (common experience) that there are no elephants in your backyard. So the question does not have a boolean sample space; it is loaded with evidence towards 'no'.

There is no statistical evidence for the question 'is the universe a creation?'.

We merely have arguments one way or the other. I start at 50% yes / 50% no and then weigh in with the arguments for/against.

"Is the universe a creation?' however has no skewed underlying answer space.
— Devans99

Demonstrate this. — fdrake

I have no evidence for or against the proposition (initially) so therefore 50% yes / 50% no is the correct initial starting point for the probability calculation.

If you refer to my calculation above, I merely start at 50% yes / 50% no and then adjust the numbers in light of the evidence.

You are somehow deriving evidence from the question 'is the universe a creation?' that is causing you to skew your probability calculation from the get-go. It would be better if you could state this evidence separately.

Why would an infinite causal regress require a first element for it to exist? — NOS4A2

The first element causes the second element (cause and effect)
The second element causes the third element
The nth element causes the nth+1 element

So in a finite regress, all elements owe their reality to the first element.

By definition, an infinite finite regress has no first element. So therefore nothing in it has any reality; no ultimate cause, so none of it can exist.

Your question is of the form 'Is X a Y?' where there are an almost infinite number of different types of Y. So the answer space is clearly not evenly distributed between Yes and No.

"Is the universe a creation?' however has no skewed underlying answer space.

It is a boolean sample space. It consists of two outcomes, the empty set and the claim that the universe is an egg. The empty set has probability 0, the universe is an egg has probability 1. — fdrake

But it is not normally distributed. We know the universe could be a handbag, a truck, a meat clever, etc... so there are many non-chicken things the universe could be. So it is a boolean question that comes loaded with evidence that the answer is 'no'.

'Is the universe a creation' - the underlying sample space is 50% yes / 50% no, as far as we can tell (before taking evidence one way or the other).

50/50 is impossible in that case. The only consistent assignment of probabilities to that set which satisfies the probability axioms assigns all probability to the universe is an egg. Therefore, the universe is an egg with probability 1. — fdrake

But there are more possibilities than 'the universe being an egg' that you have not allowed for. The universe could be a radio, a chicken, etc... So this is not a boolean sample space.

'Is the universe a creation?' on the other hand, is a boolean sample space (that is normally distributed as far as we know).

I ask again: Where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa

That leaves me as mostly deist and you as mostly atheist. That's your right. Would be interested if you could break your calculation down.

Sample space: {empty set, The universe is an egg}, probability of the universe being an egg, 1! Logic! Mathematics! Probability! — fdrake

But evidence is built into the question 'is the universe an egg?'. We know eggs are generally small, universes are big etc... So 50%/50% is not appropriate in this case.

There is however, no evidence built into the question 'is the universe a creation?'. So 50%/50% is an appropriate starting point for a probability calculation.

I merely showed that the 2 possibilities you presented are not symmetrical — Relativist

By showing that the 2 possibilities are not symmetrical, you are introducing evidence for/against the proposition. I was assessing the proposition as 50%/50% - before introducing evidence for/against (as a separate step in the probability calculation).

The point is that there's no objective basis for assigning prior probabilities to the two possibilities you stated (creator vs ~creator); — Relativist

I think we can assume the probability space is normally distributed and so assign a 50%/50% chance of either. Like when we toss a coin 100 times, it comes out heads about 50% of the time. If we knew the yes/no distribution of unknown boolean questions we could use that I suppose. But that is not available so the only unbiased approach for an unknown boolean question is 50% yes, 50% no. Any different from this and you are showing bias one way or the other.

Hearing is not listening. Besides, "more counter arguments" flood this thread just like your other "creationist" threads yet you incorrigibly cling to your dogmas. Your replies to my as well as others', counter-arguments are riddled with defects in logic and pocked with pseudo-scientific (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) nonsense. You can't see the cosmological forest, D99, for the pseudo-philosophical (i.e. kalamic) "beam in thine own eye". — 180 Proof

Maybe you could do us all a favour and point out some of these logical defects?

Rather than just throw mud like a small, enraged child.

To suppose one can refine those percentages logically...

...totally biased. — Frank Apisa

Biased in favour of the use of probability?

Most of what we know, we know only probabilistically. It think probability is an invaluable tool. Life is not certain and most questions can only be answered with probability estimates. All questions can ultimately be answered with probability estimates. I see no reason to not address important questions like the existence of a creator. We will probably never know the answer to such questions outright; probability is the best we can hope for.

I get that. Science points us down roads of further discovery of unknowns. If we allow your Deist assertion, where does that go? What do we discuss next? Does it impose a direction on our subsequent thoughts and inquiries? — Pantagruel

Science is mostly unaffected by the question of whether there was a creator (if, as I believe, that creator takes only a passive role in the universe).

I think that cosmology is effected - its currently almost 100% focused on atheistic explanations of the universe. I think that a more balanced focus would be helpful - at least some folks should be developing creator compatible cosmologies. To be fair, eternal inflation, the current favourite model, is actually quite creator friendly, but unintentionally so I think.

If pushed, almost 0%, it would be very surprising for me. It necessitates a lot of hypothesis with vaguely specified mechanisms relying upon incredible contingencies with no reason to believe them over natural explanations — fdrake

But fundamentally, nature cannot have existed forever - it would have no initial state so no subsequent states - so it must be a creation. That implies a creator. I summed up the main evidence here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/371470

For me to make any sense of it, I'd want there to be at least a description of the creation mechanism before I even felt comfortable assigning any probability to that outcome whatsoever, never mind quantifying over creation mechanisms like this would require. — fdrake

That is sort of difficult to achieve 14 billion years later. But I imagine God worked out the requirements for a life supporting universe and then built some sort of device (IE bomb) that would result in a life supporting universe. The Big Bang is the remaining evidence of this.

Assuming that your main goal is to justify your intuitive belief, and not merely the "fine tuning" version, which you yourself cite as evidence, my question is this: If we allow that the universe was created, what then? Let's say God did create the universe so that it evolves according to emergent-evolutionary principles. What's next? Do we stop trying to comprehend and study natural processes? What's next? — Pantagruel

I hold a deist viewpoint. Atheism=Science. Theism=God. Deism=Science+God.

So I believe God was the creator of the universe only rather than the theist view that he is actively involved in the universe. So science is in no way invalidated by the existence of God. I believe that God must be a logical/reasonable entity that has to abide by the laws of logic. He was responsible for the creation of the universe and nothing more. God is playing a giant game of Conway's game of life with the universe I think. So the living surfaces for life are the rocky planets. The energy source for life is the stars. And evolution is God's mechanism for developing intelligent life.

The existence/non-existence of a creator is not symmetrically balanced. How likely is it that the supernatural exists? — Relativist

You are loading the question with evidence. My approach is to start at 50%/50% for analysing an unknown boolean proposition and then adjust that estimate in light of evidence.

In this case, I do not think you have valid evidence against a creator. Supernatural is a rather loaded word with all sorts of connotations to ghosts and unexplained phenomena. The creator of the universe is technically supernatural because he is separate from (our) nature. But that does not mean he is an illogical or magical being; I believe God is constrained to be something logical (contradictions do not exist in reality) and reasonable. I do not believe in the 3Os for example. Think more of a timeless astrophysicist than a magical being.

"Devan is wrong about all conclusions he tries to derive from maths" or "Devan is right about some conclusions he tries to derive from maths", it's 50-50, boolean outcomes... — fdrake

What % probability do you assign to the unknown boolean question 'is there a creator' (before hearing the evidence). Is it:

1. 0% chance of a creator. That would be bias towards there not being a creator
2. 100% chance of a creator. That would be bias towards there being a creator
3. 50% chance of there being a creator. Unbiased.

I read and replied to all your counter arguments (which were all invalid IMO - as I pointed out).

If you have any more counter arguments, I'd be interested in hearing them. By the tone of your last post, I have to assume you don't

What is inconsistent about there being a creator?

There are 2 possibilities: 1)life was an unintended consequence of the universe's properties. 2) life was a design objective.

You haven't given a reason to think #2 is more likely than #1. — Relativist

1. Is the universe life supporting by chance? That seems very unlikely. A billion to one shot maybe.

2. There is separately (say) a 50% chance of a creator. If there is a creator then there is a 100% chance he is interested in life. That gives the chances of a creator who is interested in life at 50%

So [2] is more likely than [1].

Is there a creator? is a boolean question. It has a unknown sample space so we have to assume a normal distribution (IE 50%/50%) before taking any evidence into account.

I could of added Aquinas's 3rd argument to get to 95%...

Here is my probability estimate for 'is there a creator of the universe?':

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is there a creator?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of a creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium. 25% probability of a creator giving: 75% + 25% * 25% = 81%
4. Causality based arguments. 25% probability of a creator giving: 81% + 19% * 25% = 85%
5. Fine tuning. 50% probability of a creator giving: 85% + 15% * 50% = 92%
6. Big Bang. 25% probability of a creator giving: 92% + 8% * 25% = 94%

So I said above 95% chance of a creator, when I run the numbers I get 94%. Not too bad.

Anyone truly assessing the totality of the evidence for and against the notion of an "intelligent creator of the universe" should come away with a very loud, "I DO NOT KNOW." — Frank Apisa

So your estimate for the question 'Is there an intelligent creator of the universe?' is 50%.

Mine is more like 95%. I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you, but I suggest that the evidence available should allow you to reach a more refined probability estimate than 50% (= 'I do not know').

Not "atemporal", then. "Atemporal" mind doesn't make sense anyway. — jorndoe

Something must exist permanently (or else there would be nothing) and nothing can exist permanently in time (it would have no initial state so no subsequent states). 2+2=4, something atemporal is the only possible answer. I can't explain exactly how atemporal works but it is a logical requirement.

I have already brought to your attention the large number of arguments that there is a start of time, so these also points to the existence of something atemporal.

We know that atemporal things exist in our universe (photons) - so there is empirical evidence for the atemporal.

An estimate would have to compare against all possible worlds (cf modal realism). Not sure how you'd go about that. — jorndoe

If you were to write a computer program that generated universes at random (random initial conditions, forces and standard model), then the vast, vast majority of such universes would be lifeless I think.

1. So you agree infinite causal regresses are impossible? (see the argument in the OP).
2. So all causal regresses in existence must be finite causal regresses
3. That implies the existence of at least one uncaused cause.
4. To be able to cause something without being effected in anyway requires intelligence

Then we have the start of time. Do you believe that a greater than any number of finite days have elapsed? If no then you must agree that a start of time is required. That also requires an intelligent, uncaused cause.

Then the fact the universe is not in equilibrium means the universe cannot just be a dumb mechanical system; there must be something intelligent and permanent in the universe that is and always has kept us out of equilibrium.

Then we have the fine tuning argument in the OP.

Then we have the huge, suspicious, looking explosion that is the Big Bang.

When these arguments are taken together, one has no choice but to assign a high probability that there is in fact an intelligent creator of the universe.

Wouldn't the supposed fine-tuner of the universe have to be uniquely fine-tuned to create fine-tuned universes? Surely can't be mere coincidence...? — jorndoe

That is the point of my argument - God cannot be fine tuned and must be uncreated - so he must be something very special.

God would not create a universe that is dead for the vast majority of its existence, he would create something self renewing, see:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7415/circular-time-revisited/p1

You should ask yourself what are the ingredients needed for life. First a stable, very long lasting energy source is required. It is difficult to see how one could do better than the stars. Then living surfaces are required, again it is difficult to see how one could do better than the rocky planets.

A game you can play is to pretend to be God and say 'how would I design a universe fit for intelligent life?'. I don't believe you will come up with any model better than our universe.

I agree that if one assumes the universe is fine-tuned for life, this entails a fine-tuner. The problem is that you cannot show that the universe was likely to have been fine-tuned for life. Your unstated premise is that life was a design objective. — Relativist

It is extremely unlikely for a randomly specified universe to support life. There are about 20 fine tuned constants that have to be at or near their current values for life to be supported.

In general, suppose the universe had a different set of properties, and this resulted in objects of type X. The mere existence of X objects does not imply X objects were a design objective. — Relativist

But X in this case is life - the prime reason anyone would create a universe. Consider what the chances are that the universe is a creation. Let us take it as 50%/50% (unbiased). If the universe is a creation, then it was created by something intelligent. What other goal would an intelligent creator have apart from the creation of life (=information)?

Then there is the universe supports life by accident. Say a billion to one chance.

Which is the more probable explanation:

- A 50% chance that the universe was created for life
- A billion to one chance that it is life supporting by accident

If you wanted to beg the question of God why assume the universe had to be "fine-tuned" from the beginning? God could just as easily have ordained the spontaneous emergence of ordered complexity.... — Pantagruel

I do not believe God is omnipotent. He can't just wave his hand and it be so. He must have generated the universe from something. The Big Bang was probably caused by some sort of device that led to a chain reaction causing all the matter/energy in the universe and the emergence of the 4 forces and the standard model. The device was specified such that a life supporting universe would be the result (IE God did all the calculations first and designed an appropriate device to generate a life supporting universe).

I ask my question again...because your initial premise seems like nothing more than begging the question. You are essentially starting your argument with: There is a god. — Frank Apisa

Did you not read the section of the OP about fine tuning?

Just thought I'd point out that your D still doesn't follow. :D

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist
— Devans99

D. So the infinitude in A can't be numbered so — jorndoe

I am amazed you are disagreeing with me. It does not matter if it the elements can't be numbered (which they can), all elements are directly or indirectly dependent on the missing first element; so the whole thing cannot exist. An infinite causal regress is like a house without any foundation.

Returning to a question I think I asked you earlier:

Do you believe a greater than any finite number of days has passed?

If yes, what is your justification for believing so?

Your lack of counter arguments is illuminating.

Life (e.g. human being) fine-tunes her models of the universe - otherwise known as reflective equilibrium, a rarefied, special (cognitive) mode of adaptive behavior. — 180 Proof

Rubbish. The universe must be life supporting, from the get-go (the Big Bang) in a fundamental way (the standard model and four forces must be fined tuned). So there is simply no room/time for adaptive/evolutionary behaviour before this - there is no 'before' to do it in.

Explain why this "uncaused fine tuner" is not its own environment aka "the universe" (or nature itself). — 180 Proof

I'd imagine it is in an environment of its own somewhere beyond spacetime. But that environment cannot be fine tuned in itself, leading to the conclusion it must be something special.

Why multiply inexplicable (thereby question begging) entities needlessly? — 180 Proof

Because its a proof and I have to cover all the logical possibilities.

…,−4, −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,… — fishfry

All infinite causal regresses are impossible as I pointed out in the OP:

A. Assume an infinite causal regress exists
B. Then it has no first element
C. If it has no nth element, it has no nth+1 element
D. So it cannot exist

In your example, imagine trying to define the negative integers starting at the left '...'. Its impossible - there is no start point.

If the universe of this very special fine-tuner isn't itself fine-tuned for life then how did it ever come into existence as life? I guess that a universe has the right conditions for life aka fine-tuned universe doesn't imply a conscious fine-tuner. If that's the case then why can't this universe be the one that didn't have fine-tuner? — TheMadFool

It never came into existence, it exists permanently, timeless and uncaused. So it must not need a fine tuned environment.

It looks highly probably that this universe did have a fine tuner though; there are about 20 constants that need to be at or near there current values for life to be possible.

Your logic is at fault as I already pointed out.

OK maybe science has not reached a judgement, but initial conditions of the universe + initial laws of the universe -> determine the four forces and standard model completely, seems reasonable to me.

Right, which is al consistent with those entities emerging as a result of systemic evolution, as documented and tested through systems theory. — Pantagruel

Those properties do not evolve; they are effectively set in stone by the initial rules and conditions of the universe.

Take for example just the strong nuclear force. It must have the strength, direction and range it currently has for atomic nuclei to hold together. Quarks must have the right properties to interact with the strong nuclear force. Change any of these properties and we have no atomic nuclei, so no life.