I don't have time for much of a response right now, but I am curious: do you believe in a creator God that existed prior to the Universe, and who cares what happens? — Janus

This is not an acceptable question. When you say "who cares what happens", "cares" refers to a human emotion. But it is impossible that a God which was prior to the universe, and creator of the universe could be a human being, and this is what is required to have human emotions. So to combine these two in a single question, assuming a God which is prior to and creator of the universe, yet also having the property of a human emotion "caring", is to ask two very distinct questions, with likely two distinct answers, as one question.

You seem to be saying you are agnostic on this issue, but then if you are, then what exactly is the 'reality' you are believing in? — Janus

I don’t know - that’s part of the point. It’s a sense of there being some great and really vital thing to discover that one has inklings of but still can’t quite see. There are some parts of the Christian teaching that resonate with it, and others that don’t. It’s a work in progress.

I have said before - I think what many believe in, and what many reject, is a particular archetypal form. The name ‘Jupiter’ is derived from the Indo-European Dyaus-Pitar - meaning ‘sky father’, ‘king of the Gods’. The name ‘Jehovah’ is derived from the Hebrew ‘Tetragrammaton’ and glossed as ‘Yaweh’ and then as ‘Jehovah’. And I think in the popular imagination, ‘Jehovah’ and ‘Sky Father’ are merged into the image that is customarily associated with the name ‘God’ - ‘sky father’. And I’m not trying to be disrespectful to those who do believe in that, but it’s not what I understand by the name.

As Darth observed above, how Plato and Aristotle - the Greeks - understood the ‘first cause’ was very different to what it then became through absorption into Christian theology. But the unfortunate thing is, that much of the wisdom of the classical world then became associated with Christian dogmas and rejected on that account, which is what gave rise to modern scientific naturalism, that was substantially formed on the basis of the rejection of that. It’s a very deep and delicate matter.

The Judaic, Christian and Islamic Gods are pretty much universally understood to care, to be persons in some sense analogous to, but obviously not the same as, mortal or finite persons. These Gods are also understood to have purposes, to be pleased or displeased by human actions, and to judge humans accordingly. So, you are wrong; this is a perfectly acceptable question in the context of this thread.

We all have an anthropological understanding or explanation of God, because it is the only framework we have, it is the extent of our tools. It is important in these discussions to be aware our tools or intellect may be insufficient to understand God. We need to be equally aware that we don't interpret this cognitive distance as evidence of non existence.

This is a type of equivocation, surely? What constitutes the "universe" if there is something that is creating it? Would we be better served asking how the universe self-created?

I disagree with the way your probability works - you're not asking what the probability is of the universe forming from some initial conditions, you're asking what the chances of identification are given what the universe looks like now, which is not a probability question, it's a weight of evidence question. You're really asking: Does the evidence support hypothesis A or hypothesis B? In which case, plausible responses involve, "What about hypothesis C?" or "We don't know."

It's not a fifty-fifty chance if I am a woman or a man just because you don't know. It's about a fifty-fifty chance that you'll guess.

If you think that it is "perfectly acceptable" to assign the emotions of human beings to the creator of the universe, then I think you have a problem.

So, you are wrong; this is a perfectly acceptable... — Janus

Unless you are accepting of these "Gods", to claim that they are perfectly acceptable is simple contradiction.

Well, that's just a stupid thing to say, so nessun commento...

The OP might want to clear up the usage of probability. Probability is not just simply probability that a certain outcome is expected out of all possible outcomes in a single event. There can be multiple event. It might not be an "event" in the first place.

For example, quantum mechanical "transition" can also be considered a probability: the average number of an event happening per unit time. Indeed, if we look at a single-photon emitter, the timing in which the emitter absorbs / emits a photon (which is an electronic transition) is uncertain to some degree. If we plot the time-intensity in which the photon was emitted after a pulse of excitation light for thousands of times and add them up, then we'll get an exponential function. As such, "probability" of big bang happening makes no sense unless there is some sort of units to describe probability.

To make matters worse, the question implicitly assume that timespace is a valid thing even before big bang. Scientifically speaking, the big bang theory does not explain anything about something that happened "before" it but only after it. There are plenty of scientists postulating that timespace was a thing before big bang, but plenty of others postulating that timespace itself was nonexistent. The reason is simple. Because no one knows and Big Bang theory does not rely on unobservables such as the "universe" outside the unborn universe. Since I am no theoretical cosmologist, I cannot defend either position.

We reject Solipsism and it's related theories because, if you take them seriously they reveal themselves not to be simplified world-views, but rather indefensible over-elaborations of Realism. — tom

You've slipped in the word 'indefensible' here without justification. What grounds do we have to suggest that it is 'indefensible' I believe there are a number of religious scholars and even a few religious philosopher who defend the idea, so it seems entirely defensible to me.

Then you have equated simplicity with the adoption of ideas. You might prefer simple explanations (I do to), but you have no grounds for saying that simple explanation are more 'right' than less simple ones.

Yes, if God is the answer, then we have one extremely convoluted plan. Reminds me of the ways in which the villains would try to kill James Bond, they never just shoot him, do they?

You've slipped in the word 'indefensible' here without justification. — Pseudonym

Why don't you defend it then?

Why don't you defend it then? — tom

I don't believe it myself. I'm a fairly committed naturalist so I've no interest in defending it.

I don't believe it myself. I'm a fairly committed naturalist so I've no interest in defending it. — Pseudonym

But yet co claim it is a defensible position. How do you even know that, or are you just guessing?

It's a defensible position because people defend it. I't just basic empiricism.

It's a defensible position because people defend it. I't just basic empiricism. — Pseudonym

No one defends that position. Basic empiricism.

Look, there's no point in us arguing about it when we can easily settled the absolute, final and unequivocal Truth of the matter by simply asking David Deutch's opinion.

Look, there's no point in us arguing about it when we can easily settled the absolute, final and unequivocal Truth of the matter by simply asking David Deutch's opinion. — Pseudonym

Well, you have no defense, have no interest in a defense, can't point to a defense, but quibble with term "indefensible" to describe an indefensible position.

And yes, Deutsch is quite right to identify such creation myths and explanations from outside as variants of Solipsism, and as such refute them.

Well, that's just a stupid thing to say, so nessun commento... — Janus

That's your opinion, but "the stupid thing" which I said points to the issue of assigning to the creator of the universe, properties which only human beings are known to have. This creates a logical problem right off the bat. How can the creator of the universe have a property which only humans have?

The op employs "purpose". So we must determine what is meant by "purpose". Is purpose something which only human acts may display, or is purpose something which acts other than human may display?

If a person believes that "purpose" refers to something which is only expressed by human actions, then it is pointless to discuss purpose in relation to the creation of the universe with that person, because we know that the universe was not created by a human being.

we know that the universe was not created by a human being. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do we? How?

All these types of question seem to be quite well accepted and yet I'm still in the dark as to what the question of purpose would even mean for a creator of the universe. I'm quite happy with the distinction @Wayfarer highlights above between science describing the states and rules of the universe but remaining silent of the question "why?", but I really have no idea what anyone expects an answer to such a question to look like.

Answers to questions - "why?" have the format "because...". But 'because' literally means 'the cause of' so all we've done is move the question back, but that's exactly what science is doing, so that can't be quite it.

It seems to me that there is only one option, we have got our conception of cause and effect wrong somehow. But our conception of cause and effect is at the heart of our intuition. So where could we possibly go from here? We could analyse the possibility-space of ways in which the universe could 'be', but what tools are we going to use to do that job? We've just established that one of our most basic a priori understandings is probably wrong, so on what basis are we going to trust the rest like logic and rationality?

we know that the universe was not created by a human being.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Do we? How? — Pseudonym

In the exact same manner we find it a reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist on earth. Because we would know a unicorn if we saw one and recognize it as such. We have looked in many - many places for a very very long time, and no one has seen a unicorn. Therefor we believe unicorns do not exist and act accordingly.

It is not a fact that unicorns do not exist, but it is an artificial barrier to believe that things, concepts, ideas can only be true if they can be verified by our senses as a matter of physical fact.

we would know a unicorn if we saw one and recognize it as such. We have looked in many - many places for a very very long time, and no one has seen a unicorn. — Rank Amateur

We must determine that we would know a creator if we found one (if not, the entire search is pointless). We have certainly looked in many places for a very long time for one and no one has found such a thing. So do we rule out the possibility of a creator on the same grounds? It seems not, hence my question. By what method do we "know" the universe was not created by a human (albeit one with, as yet, unrecognised powers), which would not also be applicable to any God?

By what method do we "know" the universe was not created by a human (albeit one with, as yet, unrecognised powers), which would not also be applicable to any God? — Pseudonym

by the same logic as above, if there was a human being with the power to create the universe - we would recognize that power. We have known about a lot of human beings, none have had that power - it is reasonable to believe as true that no human being has the ability to create the universe. Further, it is exceedingly less likely to believe as true, and act accordingly that there is or was a human being that created the world.

You logic limits truth into only 3 categories, those that are verifiable facts in time and space, those things that are veritably false in time and space, and everything else that could possibly be true because we have not verified it yet to be false in time and space.

not to mention, either the Philadelphia Eagles won the Superbowl or not so I guess there is a 50% probability that the did. Not exactly a solid statistical approach. Either it will snow in the Sahara tomorrow or it won't so I guess there is a 50% probability of snow in the Sahara tomorrow. There simply is no necessary connection between the probability of particular outcomes and the number of possible outcomes, at least when the number of possible outcomes is finite.

Yes sorry I’ve tried to explain the math better below (I’ve used different % numbers so the derivation is hopefully clearer).

Proposition 1 - There was a creator god

Assume 50% probability true to start with

Big Bang is evidence for creator at 60% probability so combining probabilities:

50% + 50% x 60% = 80%

Fine tuning is evidence for the creator 75% probability so:

80% + 20% x 75% = 95%

Prime mover is evidence for the creator 25% probability so:

95% + 5% x 25% = 96.25% chance of a creator god is

To double check, I’ve done the inverse proposition below:

Proposition 2 - there was not a creator god

Assume 50% probability true to start with

Big Bang is evidence against no creator 40% probability so combining probabilities:

50% x 40% = 20%


Fine tuning is evidence against no creator 25% probability so:

20% x 25% = 5%

Prime mover is evidence against no creator 75% probability so:

5% x 75% = 3.75% chance of no creator god

Proposition 1 - There was a creator god
Assume 50% probability true to start with
Big Bang is evidence for creator at 60% probability so combining probabilities:
50% + 50% x 60% = 80% — Devans99

However, 50% + 50% x 40% = 70%. 80% + 70% = 150%. Ooops!

Too much wrong with this to even start, unless someone else wants to take it on. There are a lot of Youtube videos on statistics. Give 'em a try!

Dude you can’t add...

Here is a simpler example so you get the math:

It helps if you think about the probability space as a box. Let’s start with the proposition ‘the dog is nice’. Let’s assume you know nothing about this or any dog then the chance of the dog being nice is 50%. So imagine the probability space cut 50% / 50% ‘dog is nice’ / ‘dog is nasty’.

Now we can add a peice of evidence FOR the proposition. The owner says the dog is nice and we trust him 75%. So we already know that 50% of dogs are nice what about the 50% of dogs unknown? Well we can multiply that 50% by 75% and add it to the 50% we already had for dog is nice: 50% + 50% x 75% = 87.5%. Think of the original 50/50 probability space growing to 87.5/12.5 ‘dog is nice’ / ‘dog is nasty’.

So above is how you compute ‘evidence FOR’. ‘Evidence AGAINST’ is a different calculation:

Starting with dog is nice 50%
Now add a piece of evidence AGAINST: ‘the dog bit me’. 90% chance dog is nasty so that’s a 10% chance the dog is nice. So we take 50% x 10% = 5% chance dog is nice.

NOTICE THE CACULATION IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSITION.