Ha ha! I'm flattered! Thanks for the fun post. I'll give it a shot.

Points 1 and 2 seem good premises to start with.
Point 3: I agree. An infinite amount of theories is impossible for any limited species to make.
Point 4: So you're claiming knowledge requires observation, no problem there.
Point 5: Could life extend past the elements we currently know? Or because we have not observed it yet, we cannot know? I'll go with the later to keep consistent with point 4.

Ok, first set of questions.
Point 6: What does plausible mean in your OP? What do you mean by "explains all that we know now"? Are you talking about an origin of causality, all of the unknown steps that would lead to what we know today, or something else?
Point 7: We can create a large number of hypothesis, but they aren't infinite. Sounds good.
Points 8 and 9: I'll need the definition of plausible before I can judge these.

Great start!

The use of probability in this regard is no more than medieval scholasticism. And I have trouble accepting 1). But that's just me. Let's watch those angels breaking symmetry on that pin.

Your original post and this thread have nothing to do with God and nothing to do with probability. You're just playing around with pseudo-logic. You could as easily prove that @Jamal, the forum's fearless leader, doesn't exist as whatever it is you claim to demonstrate. Ok...

1) God is a being, comparable to the current notion of “life” we have, that is responsible for the creation of the universe. — Skalidris

I don't know what this means. I suspect it doesn't mean anything.

3) It’s impossible for humans to generate an infinite amount of theories based on a finite set of knowledge. — Skalidris

I don't see any reason to believe this is true. We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use.

4) The finite set of knowledge includes all elements we’ve “observed”, “witnessed”. — Skalidris

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that we only know the substances we've observed or witnessed? That's clearly not true. Or do you mean that we do positively know the substances we have witnessed or observed. That's not true either.

5) Life represents specific combinations of these elements. The number of “life combinations” is small compared to all the combinations of elements there are. — Skalidris

I suspect this is not true, at least in a certain sense. I think it's likely that a certain types of substance are very likely in a way that can be understood.

6) We don’t have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now. — Skalidris

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis.

7) The only way to make hypothesis about the creation of the universe is to invent structures, new combinations of elements. — Skalidris

I believe this is not true.

8) We have no criteria for assessing whether an hypothesis is more plausible than another one. (since 6): none of them make sense anyway). — Skalidris

This is clearly not true.

If the combinations we create to form the hypothesis are random, — Skalidris

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random.

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible. — Skalidris

This is only true if the probabilities of all hypotheses are equal, which is clearly not the case.

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible.
As said in 5), the hypothesis implying a life form are only a small proportion of all the combinations (hypothesis) possible. And since 8): we cannot tell which hypothesis are more plausible, we can’t state those containing the “life like forms” weight more.
=> Small number/huge number leads to a probability close to zero.

And it gets even more interesting as you start thinking about:

1) The part of the “universe” we know of is extremely small
2) Our imagination is limited to the elements we’ve “observed” (and by elements, I mean everything: dimensions, shapes, time,...).

=> The probability that the “true” theory can be made by our imagination, and therefore from knowledge from 1): that tiny part of the universe, is even more ridiculously small.

All together, ridiculously small x ridiculously small = too small to be even thought about. — Skalidris

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I am sure it's wrong.

As I noted, this is not logic. It's not philosophy at all. I'm going to run this through Chat GPT and see what it says.

Here's what Chat GPT says:

Your proposed logical proof presents several assumptions and arguments. Let's evaluate them step by step:

God is a being, comparable to the current notion of "life" we have, that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
This premise assumes the existence of a god-like being responsible for the creation of the universe. It is a theological assertion that may or may not be accepted depending on individual beliefs.

We're calculating the probability of god's existence based on the current knowledge.
This premise suggests that the probability of God's existence can be calculated based on our current knowledge. However, determining the probability of the existence of a metaphysical entity like God is highly subjective and not something that can be objectively measured or calculated.

It's impossible for humans to generate an infinite amount of theories based on a finite set of knowledge.
This premise is generally accepted. Humans have finite cognitive capacities, and our ability to generate theories and ideas is limited by our knowledge and creativity.

The finite set of knowledge includes all elements we've "observed", "witnessed".
This premise assumes that our finite set of knowledge includes all observed and witnessed elements. However, it is important to note that our knowledge is constantly expanding, and there may be elements or phenomena that we have not yet observed or discovered.

Life represents specific combinations of these elements. The number of "life combinations" is small compared to all the combinations of elements there are.
This premise suggests that the number of combinations resulting in life is small compared to the total number of possible combinations. While it is true that life, as we know it, is composed of specific combinations of elements, it is difficult to quantify the exact proportion of life combinations compared to all possible combinations without further evidence or assumptions.

We don't have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now.
This premise acknowledges our current lack of complete knowledge about the creation of the universe. It suggests that we don't have enough information to formulate a comprehensive and plausible hypothesis about the origin of the universe.

The only way to make a hypothesis about the creation of the universe is to invent structures, new combinations of elements. This leads to an incredibly high number of hypotheses possible.
This premise proposes that in the absence of complete knowledge, we are left to invent new structures and combinations of elements to form hypotheses about the creation of the universe. It implies that the number of possible hypotheses is vast.

We have no criteria for assessing whether an hypothesis is more plausible than another one. (since 6): none of them make sense anyway).
This premise suggests that due to the lack of complete knowledge and the inability to formulate a plausible hypothesis, we have no criteria for assessing the plausibility of different hypotheses. It assumes that none of the hypotheses make sense, but this is a subjective evaluation based on the limited information available.

If the combinations we create to form the hypothesis are random, their accuracy isn't affected since we can't estimate it. Therefore they will be considered random for the calculation of the probability.
This premise suggests that if the combinations used to form hypotheses are random, their accuracy cannot be estimated, and thus they are considered random for the calculation of probability. However, randomness does not necessarily imply equal probability for all outcomes, and the assumption that the hypotheses are random may not hold in reality.

Overall, your logical proof relies on a series of assumptions, subjective evaluations, and probabilities that are difficult to quantify. It is important to consider that the existence of God is a deeply philosophical and theological question that goes beyond the realm of empirical proofs and logical deductions. The probability of God's existence is a matter of personal belief and interpretation, rather than something that can be definitively proven or disproven — Chat GPT

This premise is generally accepted. Humans have finite cognitive capacities, and our ability to generate theories and ideas is limited by our knowledge and creativity. — Chat GPT

Interesting choice.

I've only played around with ChatGPT once. (And was impressed with the answer it produced in response to a fairly esoteric question.)

Does it ever ask clarifying questions?

Does it ever ask clarifying questions? — wonderer1

Not in my experience, but you can.

Keep in mind, in situations where it is possible to be wrong, current versions very often are.

This seems a bit harsh T Clark. I think he's just having a little fun. He's noted its flawed, no need to pull out AI! :)

Thanks for playing the game! I'll clarify the points:

6) We don’t have enough knowledge to make a plausible hypothesis of the creation of the universe that would explain all that we know now.

Are you talking about an origin of causality, all of the unknown steps that would lead to what we know today, — Philosophim

Yes, my idea of an hypothesis that could be plausible is that we would be able to relate it to the current laws of nature and everything would fall in place like the pieces of a puzzle. Considering that we cannot even unify laws together (eg. quantum physics with classical physics), it seems impossible to come up with an origin of causality from which would result these laws. Of course, no theories are perfect puzzles but if we call "plausible" a reasonable (or even countable) amount of "unknown" and contradictions, it's not possible for the origin of the universe.

So for 8), to assess the "plausibility", we would need to review the hypothesis one by one, apply it to all the laws we know, maybe count the question marks left unanswered and count the contradictions? But the problem is that there are many more unknown logical links (too many to be countable) and contradictions than actual links. Assuming we could count the actual links that make sense, if we were to make a ratio of plausibility, which would be: valid logical links/invalid logical links, the ratio would be the same for all hypothesis since we cannot count the invalid logical links, which is a great number for all hypothesis, much greater than the valid logical links, which seems insignificant in comparison, and therefore useless to count.
As an analogy, it would be like taking physical laws one by one and trying to explain it using only premises from the bible. I can't even think of one law that can emerge from such premises.

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis. — T Clark

Really? What would that be?

. We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use. — T Clark

Well chat GPT doesn't agree on that one, and I'm not sure what your premises are for such assumptions. Our imagination is infinite? Why would that be? Imagine a set a elements of a finite size, and imagine all the combinations possible, how could that ever be infinite?

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random. — T Clark

I never said they were, I said if they were, it wouldn't change their accuracy.

This is clearly not true. — T Clark

I don't really know what you're trying to achieve here with that type of answer. It's not true according to YOU. There rarely are consensus in philosophy, especially metaphysics. And I can't read your mind to figure out why you think it's not true, so that sentence doesn't bring any value to the conversation.

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that we only know the substances we've observed or witnessed? That's clearly not true. Or do you mean that we do positively know the substances we have witnessed or observed. That's not true either. — T Clark

The 4) statement makes an attempt at explaining how we gather knowledge in just a few words, while it represents a whole discipline (epistemology) so yes it's incredibly unprecise and lacks a lot of elements. What I wanted to express with that statement is that knowledge emerge from elements we've "experienced", in whatever way we have, whatever tool we built to be "aware" of it. I made that statement to be able to talk about these "elements" that are part of our current knowledge. I didn't express it well, if you think of a more accurate way, yet synthetized, please do tell. Maybe there is a technical word that qualify these "elements" I'm trying to talk about?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I am sure it's wrong — T Clark

It's quite funny you're actually aware of this. You said just here, that you dismiss my theory based on an intuition you cannot explain. So you admit there is no explicit logic in your opinion (which is that you disagree with mine), but yet claim my answer lacks logic, it's pretty amazing.

1). The probability of this universe existing is 1
2). The universe contains objects.
3). Humans are one such set of objects
4). Humans are also subjects.
5). Therefore part of the universe is a subject
6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1.

7). The universe as a subject satisfies most basic definitions of a God - a set of conditions that permits self awareness (the universe being aware of itself).

How it does that is through the emergence of life. As for when consciousness emerges, it may be the process of self organisation itself. In which case it is a fundamental like spacetime and energy.

It may have began before the arbitrary point in time when replicating chemicals in bubbles of material became "cells" and DNA. Or it may have begin at that moment. Or it may have began at higher lifeforms.

For me I suspect consciousness as a general ability to "sense" and control things around a focal point has been around for a long long time - like gravity being the "sense" or control of a mass on other masses forming organised solar systems, and thus consciousness would have merely changed in character, behaviour and ability.

I think we mix up the term "human consciousness" with "consciousness" in general. As we don't know what it's "like" to be other "agents" that self sustain and influence their environment - like a dog or a tree or bacterium.

6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — Benj96

To avoid a non-sequitur 6 should be:

6). Therefore the probability that at present part of the universe can exist as a subject is also 1.

6). Therefore the probability that at present part of the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — wonderer1

Well I don't think linear time actually exists outside of perception. Only frequencies and repetitive cycles.

So a sense of "present moment" , as well as past and future relies on memory. If you had no ability to remember anything from moment to moment eg. Severe dementia, then you're not orientated to any moment in time or sense of self identity. And would lose your ability to be aware and functional, unable to separate different memories of your life from the present moment.

So I think subjectivity and perception of passage of time are inextricably linked.

So when we speak of the universe as a subject it is always in the present moment. "When" subjects exist.

When we speak of the universe as at all times and places, then we speak in terms of objectivity and lack of subjectivity. As subjects cannot exist everywhere simultaneously and have any non contradictory perception of self.

"view point" is just that - the "view" (perception) from a point (locality). Imagine trying to look at yourself from every direction. Have sense of place from all places. Where are you? Who are you then? This would be like a disorientating room of mirrors existence but worse. A chaotic tessaract

6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1. — Benj96

I'm not sure I understand. The probability of a possibility is one? (you said probability that the universe CAN exist as a subject). It can exist as a subject, this is certain, this is how I understand your statement, but it doesn't mean the probability of it existing as a subject is 1. So what's your probability on the existence of God?

it doesn't mean the probability of it existing as a subject is 1 — Skalidris

Then who am I speaking to. Haha. "who". The probability of subjective existence is "self-evident" because you and I are "selves". This doesn't need external proof. You know you exist.

The universe as a singularity - as "potential" is full of every possibility. Because ultimate potential is what that is, the ability to become anything.

The issue is when it does "become" something, it can no longer be "total potential" to be anything. Some of the potential has been used up, and thus it must abide by the behaviours and conditions that are neccesitated for something to "be" and propagate as such.

Just as the potential to be ice exist simultaneously with the potential to be 100 C boiling water. However, despite the potential for water to be either of these things, when it "is" "ice" ie when it's probability of ice approaches 1, it's potential to be boiling approaches zero, impossible.

This is how potential (anything goes) leads to reality (only one set of conditions goes).

However, despite the potential for water to be either of these things, when it "is" "ice" ie when it's probability of ice approaches 1, it's potential to be boiling approaches zero, impossible. — Benj96

So what you are saying is that the possibility that the universe is a subject has already happened and therefore cannot be anything else? Also when water is ice, it's not a probability, it's a fact.

Also having subjects in the universe doesn't make the universe a subject. And the possibility of the universe being a subject doesn't mean it is true, it's just a possibility among many others. And assessing the weight of that possibility among others is what's called a probability, which is what this thread is about.

no need to pull out AI! :) — Philosophim

I didn't see that as a comment on @Skalidris. I was just curious about how Chat GPT would handle a long post in logic format. All in all, it was less harsh than my own post.

We do currently have a plausible hypothesis.
— T Clark

Really? What would that be? — Skalidris

The currently accepted cosmology - big bang, inflation. It's plausible but incomplete.

We can certainly generate an infinite number of propositions about anything. That is one of the fundamental features of the kind of language we use.
— T Clark

...I'm not sure what your premises are for such assumptions. — Skalidris

Infinite wasn't right. The right word is "unlimited." Humans languages can generate an unlimited number of propositions.

It's clear that the possible combinations are not random.
— T Clark

I never said they were, I said if they were, it wouldn't change their accuracy. — Skalidris

The only way that a calculation of probability can be meaningful is if all the possible configurations of the system are equally probable. If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis.

you dismiss my theory based on an intuition you cannot explain. So you admit there is no explicit logic in your opinion (which is that you disagree with mine), but yet claim my answer lacks logic, — Skalidris

I'm not required to provide reasons for my disagreement with you if you didn't provide justifications for your statements in the first place.

My response to you didn't use logic. All I did was disagree with your assumptions.

The currently accepted cosmology - big bang, inflation. It's plausible but incomplete. — T Clark

I asked chat GPT to name 15 theories that could explain the origin of the universe, whether they are scientific, spiritual or religious:

Big Bang Theory
Inflation Theory
Multiverse Theory
Oscillating Universe Theory
Quantum Fluctuation Theory
Creationism
Intelligent Design
Hindu Cosmology
Buddhist Cosmology
Native American Creation Myths
Steady State Theory
Ekpyrotic Theory
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
String Theory
Plasma Cosmology

Even in the realm of science, there are a lot of hypothesis that are really different from each other. The problem is: how can you tell which one is more probable? The big bang theory is the more famous one but does that mean that it's the most probable? Have scientist really tried to assess probabilities and uncertainties of the different theories? If so, I'd love to read a paper about it, do you know any? I find science a bit helpless for assessing probability when it comes to such abstract concept that contains so many uncertainties.

And even if we could find the most probable theory according to science's standards, the second part that I explained would make the probability of that theory close to zero anyway:

=> The probability that the “true” theory can be made by our imagination, and therefore from knowledge from 1): that tiny part of the universe, is even more ridiculously small. — Skalidris

My point is, I genuinely don't understand why humans even try to answer these questions. Especially since they made the hypothesis that the universe is infinite, which makes our knowledge look ridiculous, so why try to speculate about the origin of everything?

The right word is "unlimited." Humans languages can generate an unlimited number of propositions. — T Clark

Unlimited is still wrong, probabilistically. If you compare human's imagination with the power of creating combinations of elements, if the number of elements is finite, the number of combinations is as well, it is limited by the size of the sample. At least at a given time. You could say that it's unlimited because that sample of elements is constantly growing but it's different from my proposition.

If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis. — T Clark

I didn't understand that.

I'm not required to provide reasons for my disagreement with you if you didn't provide justifications for your statements in the first place. — T Clark

You're not required, I'm just saying I don't see how it is useful for anyone. I don't mean to be rude but who solely cares about the opinion of a random person on the internet? How can it be useful to know a human being disagrees with something, without having any more details on the reasons why? At least if I had the reasons why, maybe it would provide useful information.

I might not have detailed my justification enough for you to be able to make anything of it, but that's personal, the probability that someone can extract useful information out of my 400 word intro is much greater than extracting info from the sentence "I disagree" :p

how can you tell which one is more probable? — Skalidris

As I understand it, the big bang theory with inflation is the current consensus cosmological theory. I'm sure that will change over time as we learn more, but the current theory is plausible.

My point is, I genuinely don't understand why humans even try to answer these questions. Especially since they made the hypothesis that the universe is infinite, which makes our knowledge look ridiculous, so why try to speculate about the origin of everything? — Skalidris

It has not been established whether the universe if finite or infinite. Even if it is infinite, that doesn't mean we can't understand it, or at least the part of it we have access to.

Unlimited is still wrong, probabilistically. If you compare human's imagination with the power of creating combinations of elements, if the number of elements is finite, the number of combinations is as well, it is limited by the size of the sample. At least at a given time. You could say that it's unlimited because that sample of elements is constantly growing but it's different from my proposition. — Skalidris

I don't understand what you're trying to say. It seems like you're saying that humans are capable of understanding all the possible combinations of matter and energy, but I thought you said previously that is not possible.

If you assume they are with no evidence, it invalidates the analysis.
— T Clark

I didn't understand that. — Skalidris

You have claimed but not shown that all the possible configurations of the universe are equally likely. If they are not equally likely, analyzing their probability by the method you are using will not work.

I might not have detailed my justification enough for you to be able to make anything of it, but that's personal, the probability that someone can extract useful information out of my 400 word intro is much greater than extracting info from the sentence "I disagree" :p — Skalidris

There is no information in your original post, only unsubstantiated claims. You are guilty of the same intellectual crime you've accused me of. But I'm innocent. As I noted, I don't have to provide justifications for disagreeing with your unjustified claims. I don't have to show they're false, you have to show they're true.

Are you talking about an origin of causality, all of the unknown steps that would lead to what we know today,
— Philosophim
Yes, my idea of an hypothesis that could be plausible is that we would be able to relate it to the current laws of nature and everything would fall in place like the pieces of a puzzle. — Skalidris

Lets go by your own definitions. You noted that what could be known is what can be observed. Can we observe that any one hypothesis is implausible? No, we can only test it to see if it matches reality. Lets examine what odds mean as well.

If I have a deck of 52 cards, the likelihood of a jack being pulled is 4/52, or 1/13. These odds only apply because we don't know which card will end up being pulled. Lets say we have a machine shuffle the deck and pull the top card. Since there is nothing in our knowledge which makes it more likely that any one card would be on top over another, we can safely claim those odds.

However, the shuffle is a real action. If we were to watch it, we would know with certainty which card was on top. Odds only work if you don't know certain aspects of reality and you want to make a reasonably inductive guess. Odds also only work if its reasonable to assume all situations have an equal chance of being.

In the case of hypothesis, you really don't have an underlying reason to state that any one hypothesis is plausible or less plausible than another. First of all, humanity can only know of a finite number of hypothesis, meaning the number of possible hypothesis is not infinite. Second, we need a method for demonstrating whether a hypothesis is true. Do we have any facts that demonstrate that any hypothesis we create has any greater chance of being true than another? No. Its not a chance that a hypothesis is true, its a chance that the hypothesis we pick can match correctly to reality.

In other words there are only a limited number of hypothesis which could be true. To simplify, lets say its one. So in a finite deck of cards, 1 out of that finite deck is true. Are we pulling hypothesis at random however? No. We can use reason and logic to rule out many potentials. When we do, do we know how many viable hypothesis are left? No, but its a finite number. So every hypothesis we test lowers the denominator by an unknown number as we discover more knowledge. Is the hypothesis we pick to explore next the right one? Now that's a clear 1/x chance. Meaning while the next hypothesis we pick to explore is most likely not going to be the one that matches reality, it definitely has a real chance to.

By this logic resulting from the premises you've put forth, we cannot conclude that any one hypothesis is more plausible or implausible than another merely looking at what has been left over after knowledge has eliminated the invalid ones. All we can do is pick the next hypothesis, explore it, and use that knowledge to further lower the denominator of possible hypotheses that humanity can create.

Was I close in the ball park of your flaw, or did you have another in mind?

Probability of god’s existence = hypothesis including a god/all hypothesis possible.
As said in 5), the hypothesis implying a life form are only a small proportion of all the combinations (hypothesis) possible. And since 8): we cannot tell which hypothesis are more plausible, we can’t state those containing the “life like forms” weight more.
=> Small number/huge number leads to a probability close to zero. — Skalidris

I didn't see the original post on The Probability of God, but I do have a book by that name, written by theoretical physicist Stephen Unwin --- now specializing in Risk Management (a profession heavily dependent on probability math). Ironically, he indirectly describes himself as a "mathematical theologist".

He begins by stating that "I'm starting from the premise that I don't know whether or not there is a God". Then he notes "since the existence of God is the ultimate uncertainty and probabilistic analysis is the means of addressing uncertainties . . . . The probability of God begs to be computed". And the "means" he employs is Bayesian analysis, which is intended to quantify a personal belief.

Unfortunately, you have to define and quantify that personal belief at the outset, which tends to bias the calculation in a particular direction. Nevertheless, he states that "we can then incorporate the probability of God into our everyday decisions with the comfort of knowing that we are behaving rationally, as the numbers dictate". Obviously, you can't actually quantify such an innumerable concept as the creator of the whole world, including numbers & math. So the quantity he plugs into the calculation is merely his personal confidence in such a universal Principle"*1.

He characterizes the Intelligent Design god-concept as a "gap filler". Then in a side note, he says "the unsettling aspect of this notion of God as a gap-filler is understanding that as scientific knowledge increases, God inevitably shrinks". So, he concludes "I suppose that creation of the very principles of nature is the most credible God-slot". This is basically the First Cause or Prime Mover principle of Aristotle & Plato*2.

If you are interested in the details of his argument, you can read the book. But I'll just conclude with a final quote "As for the probability that my particular view of God is the correct one? Well, it's really more a matter of faith". :smile:

*1. In case you are wondering, here's his starting & ending numbers :
"I would set my overall belief factor at B(G) = 95%
So, since my reasoned probability is P(G) = 67%
Then use of the faith formula reveals that F(G) = 28%"
Note -- although that final number may seem disappointing for believers, the author adds a chapter conclusion : "Faith and reasoned probability measure disparate forms of belief".

*2. Though they often disagreed, one principle of philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle agreed was that existence and the universe required a First Cause or Prime Mover - a god of some kind.
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/public/exported_courses/HZT4U/exported/HZT4UU02/HZT4UU02/HZT4UU02A04/_ld1.html

The very first line in the OP's reasoning defines whatever it was that was responsible for the beginning of the universe as 'god'.

Acceptance of that axiomatic statement sets the probability of the existence of god at 100%.

The first logical question is to question the first statement.

Regards, stay safe and well.