But there are empirical claims against the existence of a conscious entity able to create a universe. Every conscious entity has a nervous system and could not survive the conditions of a big bang.
Edit: and could not act "before" the big bang.

Reasoning is evident. Based upon what we know about reality, we can divide existence by the line of human level consciousness. So there is all existence (living and non-living) below that line and all existence above that line. That makes it two options. Since we don't know which option is source of creation of the universe, as said in (2) - without further measurements and observations, there is a 50% chance that any of the two possibilities is true.

as said in (2) - without further measurements and observations, there is a 50% chance that any of the two possibilities is true. — Henri

This is really exasperating. Three times I challenged you defend your premise - and you respond by repeating it, almost word-for-word, still without providing any reasoning.

By the way, human level consciousness is taken as dividing line for two starting options because humans work with plan and purpose in a way other beings on earth do not. And we don't have any other observations available.

We can assume that higher level consciousness works with even higher plan and purpose. And complexity in creation.

On the other hand, if an entity with consciousness of a rabbit created the universe, that's effectively the same as if universe got to be created by unconscious means, because as far as we can observe such consciousness couldn't plan complex creation, and creation would be, effectively, result of a chance, not plan and purpose with defined end goal in mind.

Based upon what we know about reality, we can divide existence by the line of human level consciousness. — Henri

We could divide it by any other line just as well. What, besides your racial egoism, leads to the conclusion that mankind is that line? It's just as justified to draw the line between conscious and not conscious instead.

Racial egoism? That's some messed up stuff.

I explained why human level consciousness is dividing line in post above.

Argh, sniped.

Why is working with plan and purpose the line that divides the probability to 50/50? We could just consider unconscious creator, conscious creator not purposefully planning the world as it is and conscious creator designing the world as three options and say each one has 33% chance. Which is f'd up because we can't just assume unknown probabilities to be equal.

Also:

humans work with plan and purpose in a way other beings on earth do not. — Henri

That's narrow-minded, arrogant and ignorant.

I haven't heard no chicken Bach.

You can consider unconscious creator or conscious creator not purposefully planning the world, but when we measure and observe human behavior and actions, how many creations does human create by being unconscious or not in any way purposefully planning the creation?

Not one computer program got to exist without some programmer, ultimately, at least opening software for coding and writing something. Even chance discoveries in a lab demand people purposefully being in a lab to do lab work. Or even your short answers on this site have to include you being awake and at least have some purpose in composing sentences.

But even so, there are possibilities for various modes of creation, but they still don't diminish minimum 50% chance that a conscious entity, the creator, created the universe.

You can consider unconscious creator or conscious creator not purposefully planning the world, but when we measure and observe human behavior and actions, how many creations does human create by being unconscious or not in any way purposefully planning the creation? — Henri

If the creator doesn't consiously plan the decision of creation, the scenario isn't comparable to human consciously planning a creation. All animals create footsteps even though they don't decide to act in such a way that they'd be the result of their actions.

But even so, there are possibilities for various modes of creation, but they still don't diminish minimum 50% chance that a conscious entity, the creator, created the universe. — Henri

Yes, they do, because

we can't just assume unknown probabilities to be equal — BlueBanana

and if we can, we can come up with an infinite amount of other scenarios and then the probability is no more 100%/2.

It's just not true that various imagined modes through which creator could create the universe diminish the chance that conscious entity, the creator, created the universe.

Whatever is the chance for creator to create the universe, and it's minimum 50% chance as OP presents, within that chance can be argued through what mode creator actually did the creating. But chance for creation by creator remains the same.

Yes, you can come up with many imagined scenarios how creator created the universe, but that's another premise, nothing to do with premise in OP.

It's just not true that various imagined modes through which creator could create the universe diminish the chance that conscious entity, the creator, created the universe. — Henri

I agree, but meanwhile it's just as true as your 2nd premise. It's just straight out BS. You need another premise prior to it, which is that unknown probabilities are equal, which is BS. Given that premise we can draw an equally valid conclusion that P(X)=Y , ∀X∈R , Y∈[0,1].

Premise from OP stands relative to your answers. You can ultimately call it names, but you didn't prove anything other than that you dislike the idea that you are created by God.

When other things fail...

Your argument deserves a gold star.

It's either true or not, there's no need for embellishments.

you didn't prove anything other than that you dislike the idea that you are created by God. — Henri

First of all, I didn't call your arguments BS. I called a premise of a premise you hadn't claimed to be BS, and drew from it the conclusion that you yourself claimed to be false. Basically a reductio ad absurdum.

Second, I believe in God. People are (or at least should be) capable of recognizing the objective validity of claims and logical conclusions regardless of whether they support their opinions. I can claim an argument to contain a logical fallacy and to be false but still support its conclusion.

The premise doesn't stand because you take it as a premise, allowing others to show it to be an example of a false premise. Nowhere in the OP is 2) defended or based on anything.

(2) is based on two options, and two options are defined in (1). Those two options are all encompassing as far as we understand reality and I can't see a third option that can be added. Provide me an example of a third option that can be added to (1).

At the same time (2) doesn't say that there is 50/50 chance, it says that only taking into consideration premise (1), meaning without further measurements and observations, there is 50% chance that any possibility is true.

Without further measurements and observations, there is a 50% chance that any of the two possibilities is true. — Henri

You're not wrong in assigning a 50% chance for God's existence. Nobody knows the exact probability and we're ''free'' to bet as we see fit. I say ''free'' because we're actually not free. :P . We need some data to start off from, don't you think?

We can observe design and that's a point for God. We see evil and that's against God and so on... How does one juggle all the data...I don't know. Bayes' theorem provides a basic tool to handle such issues.

(2) is based on two options, and two options are defined in (1). Those two options are all encompassing as far as we understand reality and I can't see a third option that can be added. Provide me an example of a third option that can be added to (1). — Henri

Aside from the option of the world not having been created, I think I can accept (1) except for the definition of consciousness. Imo the issue is solely (2).

At the same time (2) doesn't say that there is 50/50 chance, it says that only taking into consideration (1), meaning without further measurements and observations, there is 50% chance that any possibility is true. — Henri

And that is false. It means that without further information the probabilities are 100% unknown to us which is not the same thing as them having equal probabilities. Furthermore, in (4)-(8) you claim that no further information can be obtained that'd reveal us anything about those probabilities, but in arguing for those points you only work with unconscious aspects of our physical universe, resulting in that those points only apply to a posteriori knowledge. We can at least theoretically through logical reasoning access a priori information which can diminish those 50% chances, an example being that the more ways something can happen the likelier the event generally speaking is.

Without further information the probabilities are 100% unknown to us which is not the same thing as them having equal probabilities. — BlueBanana

Then your conclusion is that there is any chance that creator of the universe exists, just as there is any chance that such creator doesn't exist. That's effectively 50/50.

We can at least theoretically through logical reasoning access a priori information which can diminish those 50% chances, an example being that the more ways something can happen the likelier the event generally speaking is. — BlueBanana

Not in case of the creator of the universe which you don't have access to measure in any essential way, as far as we are aware of.

Nothing we are available to measure doesn't diminish any chance of the creator of the universe to exist, because there is no known law of nature that says that within creation there must be proof and clues that creator exists. Creator can make a world that's opposing to rules that exist outside of universe we live in. We don't have any way to assume one way or the other, when we rely on our measurements.

Is number of people who believe in God, or in a god, proof or clue for existence of God? Not really. As far as we can tell, God can create a world in which nobody thinks that God exists. Maybe one can say that that would be unreasonable, but what natural law says that everything about reality has to be reasonable, or understandable, to a human? We already know that most living beings, all other species basically, are oblivious to a lot of things about reality.