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').

So your estimate for the question 'Is there an intelligent creator of the universe?' is 50%. — Devans99

No.

I am not making an estimate at all. I am giving a definitive answer.

I DO NOT KNOW.

Mine is more like 95%.

I understand that. There are at least five people in the other forum where I post who feel the percentage is even higher...IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

They...and you...are not actually doing any calculating. You are simply stating your individual biases...your blind guesses about the REALITY.

I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you...

Absolutely. Do not think I am attempting to deny you that opinion. I respect it.

...but I suggest that the evidence available should allow you to reach a more refined probability estimate than 50% (= 'I do not know').

Okay...but in which direction???

Here is my personal take:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Change the "gods" to "intelligent creator."

What on Earth do you see wrong, illogical, or unreasonable about that?

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.

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

I have eggs or bacon on my bed.
50% chance of eggs, 50% chance of bacon.
I look at my bed.
No eggs, no bacon.
What went wrong?
Maybe I had salad or marmite sandwiches instead...
I guess that makes the probability of eggs and bacon and marmite sandwiches 1/16 now!

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 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. — Devans99

You're missing the point: you are implictly treating life as a design objective. Indeed, if the goal was to have life, the designer needed to carefully tune those parameters. But that doesn't prove life was a design objective. Low probability things happen all the time purely by chance.

But X in this case is life - the prime reason anyone would create a universe. — Devans99

Sure -IF someone created the universe, life is a plausible objective. But you can't assume a creator if you're trying to prove there's 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.

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. — Devans99

That's nonsense. It's a naive use of the Principle of Indifference.

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].

P (Is there a creator | inconsistency of creator concept ) = 0

There, equal validity to everything you've said. Therefore there's no creator.

What is inconsistent about there being a creator?

↪180 Proof Your lack of counter arguments is illuminating. — Devans99

Your lack of valid, let alone sound, arguments, D99, is, in part, in what my counter-arguments consist. My "illuminating" posts contain objections to which you fail to reply, links to prior posts and other sources from which you are apparently incapable of learning, and references to other thinkers on the various problems with "fine-tuning" or "anthropic principles" with whom you're abundantly ignorant as evidenced by your pseudo-arguments. That you're in denial of, or too intellectually disingenuous to acknowledge, that, is telling, D99, as others also keep pointing out.

- A 50% chance that the universe was created for life — Devans99

"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...

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

"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.

. Is the universe life supporting by chance? That seems very unlikely. A billion to one shot maybe. — Devans99

Consider a random number generator that generates numbers between 1 and a1 billion. The number 379,219,771 is generated. It's odds were 1 in a billion. Should we be suspicious that the generator was not truly random?

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%

The principle of indifference can only be applied when the probabilities are symmetrically balanced, as in the probability of a coin coming up heads or tails. The existence/non-existence of a creator is not symmetrically balanced. How likely is it that the supernatural exists? that intentionality can exist without a physical basis? that an intelligence is omniscient/omniscient (or at least sufficiently knowledgable and powerful) to act? I could go in, but the point is that the POI is not applicable.

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

I am impressed by your balanced (if dogged) pursuit of your creationist agenda. I think, however, your intuitions about "fine tuning" are a red herring. They presuppose what you are trying to prove (petitio principii) as others have pointed out.

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?

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.

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.

What % probability do you assign to the unknown boolean question 'is there a creator' (before hearing the evidence). Is it: — Devans99

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. 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. Consider; you are assigning a probability to a proposition rather than an event, I wanna know more about the proposed events of creation.

You're also using the principle of indifference to bracket knowledge we have, rather than assigning it after analysing what knowledge we have and concluding a total absence.

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. — Devans99

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?

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.

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. — Devans99

Not bad at all.

Here is my probability estimate for the same proposition.

4 to 1 that there is no "creator."

I flipped Mr. Coin (the coin I use to resolve football bets) 5 times...4 times it came up tails...and I had designated "tails" to be the "no" side.

Too much trouble to refine it any further...I was not in the mood to flip it even 10 times, let alone the 100 times that would have been necessary to refine it to what you did.

I submit that my method of "calculating" the probability is every bit as scientific as yours...and probably a less biased method.

Where does that leave us?

What % probability do you assign to the unknown boolean question 'is there a creator' (before hearing the evidence). Is it:
— Devans99

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

Here I'd have to disagree. There is barely a consensus as to what knowledge is. However one thing that science has established quite satisfactorily is that there is more that is unknown than known. Moreover science has likewise established its own approximate and ever-evolving nature. Look at historical paradigm shifts.

I suggest that there are types of regularities that perhaps are not evident to trivial observation, that perhaps do become evident through sometimes infrequent idiosyncratic experiences which not everyone has or pays attention to. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that people could find themselves possessed of valid "reasons for believing" in almost anything...anything within "the pale of possibility" shall we say.

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.

Here I'd have to disagree. There is barely a consensus as to what knowledge is. However one thing that science has established quite satisfactorily is that there is more that is unknown than known. Moreover science has likewise established its own approximate and ever-evolving nature. Look at historical paradigm shifts. — Pantagruel

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. — Devans99

The fallible and incomplete nature of knowledge is not evidence for any hypothesis of creation.

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. — Devans99

To suppose one can refine those percentages logically...

...totally biased.

I personally am quite "creator-friendly". As indicated, I just don't see this imposing any other constraints.

The fallible and incomplete nature of knowledge is not evidence for any hypothesis of creation. — fdrake

That isn't what I said. I explained my positive hypothesis.

If you have any more counter arguments, I'd be interested in hearing them. — Devans99

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". :snicker: :ok:

Is the universe life supporting by chance? That seems very unlikely. A billion to one shot maybe. — Devans99

IF this existence ALL is the result of chance...and if existence if infinite and eternal..

...a billion to one shot amounts to dead certainty.