To suppose one can refine those percentages logically...

...totally biased. — Frank Apisa

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.

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

Maybe you could do us all a favour and point out some of these logical defects?

Rather than just throw mud like a small, enraged child.

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

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.

Furthermore, this is false:

If there is a creator then there is a 100% chance he is interested in life. — Devans99

There could have been a creator completely indifferent to what his creation might eventually result in.

Maybe you could do us all a favour and point out some of these logical defects? — Devans99

We have been doing you this favour post after post, thread after thread. Leading you to water, we still cannot make you think ... :sweat:

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

Someone posits something arbitrary, is otherwise logical, and makes a sensible inference; garbage in, garbage out.

But what if the universe is a egg? Therefore the universe has a shell.

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.

I merely showed that the 2 possibilities you presented are not symmetrical — 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).

The point is that there's no objective basis for assigning prior probabilities to the two possibilities you stated (creator vs ~creator); — Relativist

I think we can assume the probability space is normally distributed and so assign a 50%/50% chance of either. Like when we toss a coin 100 times, it comes out heads about 50% of the time. If we knew the yes/no distribution of unknown boolean questions we could use that I suppose. But that is not available so the only unbiased approach for an unknown boolean question is 50% yes, 50% no. Any different from this and you are showing bias one way or the other.

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

Sample space: {empty set, The universe is an egg}, probability of the universe being an egg, 1! Logic! Mathematics! Probability!

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

Okay...so let's take my estimate of probability into account.

I am saying that my estimate, as scientifically derived as yours, shows a probability of an intelligent designer to be only 20%. The probability that this is not intelligently designed is 80%.

I ask again: Where does that leave us?

Sample space: {empty set, The universe is an egg}, probability of the universe being an egg, 1! Logic! Mathematics! Probability! — fdrake

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.

There is however, no evidence built into the question 'is the universe a creation?'. So 50%/50% is an appropriate starting point for a probability calculation.

I ask again: Where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa

That leaves me as mostly deist and you as mostly atheist. That's your right. Would be interested if you could break your calculation down.

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

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.

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.

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

Tell that to any funding body, ethics committee or practicing scientist.

Doesn't alter the argument's force. A valid hypothesis will eventually prove its merit. Paradigm shifts are real.

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.

'Is the universe a creation?' on the other hand, is a boolean sample space (that is normally distributed as far as we know).

And what do paradigm shifts and the falsifiability criterion have to say about creation hypotheses again?

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 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. Therefore the universe is an egg with probability 1.

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

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'.

'Is the universe a creation' - the underlying sample space is 50% yes / 50% no, as far as we can tell (before taking evidence one way or the other).

And what do paradigm shifts and the falsifiability criterion have to say about creation hypotheses again? — fdrake

All I'm pointing out is that it is possible for someone to have a legitimate reason for believing that there is a higher form of consciousness, different orders of causality, whatever, which they might choose to characterize as a Deity. Personally, I'm neutral on the subject. I do think there is something more going on. So have many thinkers at many points in history. Some of those intuitions have proven accurate and have toppled outmoded belief systems. I have no prejudices as to what that might entail, and am open to that expectation being falsified. However to think that our current belief-system is somehow "more adequate" than any that has gone before is naive, don't you think?

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

The negation of "the universe is an egg" has probability 0. Why would I consider things of probability 0?

(before taking evidence one way or the other). — Devans99

There is no evidence that the universe is not an egg. Literally none. 0 probability.

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?

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?

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.

Just because it is reasonable to come to hold a belief doesn't mean the belief is necessarily true...

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.

"Is the universe a creation?' however has no skewed underlying answer space.

Why would an infinite causal regress require a first element for it to exist?

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

I imagined the details linking your statements to each other. You didn't spell them out.

(Hypothesis generation is arbitrary) & (Knowledge is fallible and contingent) & (Paradigm shifts are possible) => (It is reasonable to believe in some creation hypothesis), why?

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

X is consistent with Y is not sufficient grounds for belief in either X or Y.

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 this universe a created universe?" same statement form.

"Is the universe a creation?' however has no skewed underlying answer space. — Devans99

Demonstrate this.

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

OK, let's treat what I said as evidence. The fact that you are ignoring this evidence demonstrates assymmetry and bias.

I think we can assume the probability space is normally distributed and so assign a 50%/50% chance of either. ... — Devans99

Normal distribution of 2 possibilities (creator, ~creator)? You're just restating your unsupported claim that we should consider these equally probable.

Like when we toss a coin 100 times, it comes out heads about 50% of the time.

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.

Why would an infinite causal regress require a first element for it to exist? — NOS4A2

The first element causes the second element (cause and effect)
The second element causes the third element
The nth element causes the nth+1 element

So in a finite regress, all elements owe their reality to the first element.

By definition, an infinite finite regress has no first element. So therefore nothing in it has any reality; no ultimate cause, so none of it can exist.

"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) so therefore 50% yes / 50% no is the correct initial starting point for the probability calculation.

If you refer to my calculation above, I merely start at 50% yes / 50% no and then adjust the numbers in light of the evidence.

You are somehow deriving evidence from the question 'is the universe a creation?' that is causing you to skew your probability calculation from the get-go. It would be better if you could state this evidence separately.

I have no evidence for or against the proposition (initially) — Devans99

Can you justify this? It seems to me that I can use:

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 this universe a created universe?"

Because there are an almost infinite number of different types of sort Y. So the answer space is clearly not evenly distributed between Yes and No.

Thanks for the explanation.

So then to what do we owe the reality of the first element, a first tuner, if not an anterior one? Sure a finite regress all elements owe their reality to the first element, but I cannot see how that is true of an infinite one.

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

But you have statistical evidence (common experience) that there are no elephants in your backyard. So the question does not have a boolean sample space; it is loaded with evidence towards 'no'.

There is no statistical evidence for the question 'is the universe a creation?'.

We merely have arguments one way or the other. I start at 50% yes / 50% no and then weigh in with the arguments for/against.

The argument was about the reasonability of believing in anything that isn't contradicted by existing evidence. As I said, how about you explain why or how "The universe was created" contradicts any known feature of reality?

I kind of see where the "nitpicky logic" tone that a lot of the threads degenerate into comes from now though. Top down I think.