To suppose one can refine those percentages logically...
...totally biased. — Frank Apisa
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
I didn't give you any evidence. I merely showed that the 2 possibilities you presented are not symmetrical. You're obsessing on exactly one of the items of complexity I mentioned (supernatural), but that's beside the point. The point is that there's no objective basis for assigning prior probabilities to the two possibilities you stated (creator vs ~creator); the POI cannot be applied.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. — Devans99
There could have been a creator completely indifferent to what his creation might eventually result in.If there is a creator then there is a 100% chance he is interested in life. — Devans99
That isn't what I said. I explained my positive hypothesis. — Pantagruel
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. — Pantagruel
I merely showed that the 2 possibilities you presented are not symmetrical — Relativist
The point is that there's no objective basis for assigning prior probabilities to the two possibilities you stated (creator vs ~creator); — 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). — Devans99
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. — Devans99
Sample space: {empty set, The universe is an egg}, probability of the universe being an egg, 1! Logic! Mathematics! Probability! — fdrake
I ask again: Where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa
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. — Devans99
There are certain regularities that only become evident through 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 that the universe is an egg from almost anything... anything within the pale of possibility, shall we say. — fdrake
You are being glib. Popper points out that it doesn't matter where hypotheses come from. You can't require that a hypothesis be evidentially based, you end up in an infinite regress: what is the evidence for the evidence when you don't already know the law. Why didn't anyone figure out the theory of gravity before Newton? Some people perceive things that others do not. — Pantagruel
You can't require that a hypothesis be evidentially based
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. — Devans99
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
And what do paradigm shifts and the falsifiability criterion have to say about creation hypotheses again? — 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'. — Devans99
(before taking evidence one way or the other). — Devans99
However to think that our current belief-system is somehow "more adequate" than any that has gone before is naive, don't you think? — Pantagruel
Therefore it's reasonable to believe the universe was created"? How does this possibly follow? — fdrake
You weren't able to follow the line of reasoning about the origin of hypotheses, contingent and limited character of knowledge, and the possibility of paradigm shifting? — Pantagruel
Maybe the universe was created. How would the statement "The universe was created" in any way contradict anything else that we know about the universe? Think about it. — Pantagruel
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. — Devans99
"Is the universe a creation?' however has no skewed underlying answer space. — Devans99
OK, let's treat what I said as evidence. The fact that you are ignoring this evidence demonstrates assymmetry and bias.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). — Devans99
Normal distribution of 2 possibilities (creator, ~creator)? You're just restating your unsupported claim that we should consider these equally probable.I think we can assume the probability space is normally distributed and so assign a 50%/50% chance of either. ... — Devans99
Coin toss outcomes are symmetrical: each possibility is clearly of equal probability. We can't say that about the existence of a creator. 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.Like when we toss a coin 100 times, it comes out heads about 50% of the time.
Why would an infinite causal regress require a first element for it to exist? — NOS4A2
"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) — Devans99
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. — Devans99
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.