Then if that were true, the only possibility would be intelligent creation which would be 100%, not 50%. And your argument reduces to:

Given that the universe had a beginning
And I don't believe anything other than an intelligent creator could've done it
God exists

Not very compelling. — Kenosha Kid

Look at it this way - spacetime is either a deliberate or random creation. If its random, then it resulted in the start of time, the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the universe. I just don't buy that. No quantum fluctuation does that kind of thing.

Before we continue, clarify something for me. If the initial distribution is 60% chance he is guilty, which of these is correct:

1. 60% guilty + 40% innocent x 25% = 70% guilty
2. 40% innocent + 60% guilty x 25% = 55% guilty — Michael

[1] is the approach I am using.

Not quite sure what you mean with [2].

Not quite sure what you mean with [2]. — Devans99

I'm multiplying the evidence of guilt given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife).

Your approach (1) multiplies the evidence of innocence given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife).

Look at it this way - spacetime is either a deliberate or random creation. If its random, then it resulted in the start of time, the Big Bang and the fine tuning of the universe. I just don't buy that. No quantum fluctuation does that kind of thing. — Devans99

I admire the alacrity with which you adopt overwhelming authority on subjects you're clearly not remotely informed on, but there's a whole bunch of actual quantum theorists out there who know you're wrong. Now maybe to you this seems very biased, but in evaluating the likelihood of a scientific theory of genesis, I'm going to err on the side of the physcists, not the creationist.

Anyway, where are we up to with this proof?

The universe must have had a beginning.
I just don't buy that it could be anything other than God who started it.
Therefore God exists.

The universe must have had a beginning.
I just don't buy that it could be anything other than God who started it.
Therefore God exists. — Kenosha Kid

Basically sums it up nicely.

@Devans99, could you do me a favour and 'just not believe' there could be any less than ten grand in my savings account, there's a dear.

1. 60% guilty + 40% innocent x 25% = 70% guilty
2. 40% innocent + 60% guilty x 25% = 55% guilty — Michael

I'm multiplying the evidence of guilt given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife).

Your approach (1) multiplies the evidence of innocence given by the first piece of evidence (the initial distribution) by the evidence of guilt given by the second piece of evidence (the knife). — Michael

Approach [2] does not make sense to me - we have 60% guilty to start with. Then we say a piece of evidence additionally makes it 25% likely that he is guilty. So the initial guilt estimate of 60% has to increase rather than decrease (to 55% as in [2]).

I admire the alacrity with which you adopt overwhelming authority on subjects you're clearly not remotely informed on, but there's a whole bunch of actual quantum theorists out there who know you're wrong. Now maybe to you this seems very biased, but in evaluating the likelihood of a scientific theory of genesis, I'm going to err on the side of the physcists, not the creationist. — Kenosha Kid

Quantum cosmology is the synergy of GR and QM - two completely incompatible theories. So quantum cosmology is on shaky foundations. Quantum cosmology based theories are therefore very speculative and have a low probability of being correct.

The universe must have had a beginning.
I just don't buy that it could be anything other than God who started it.
Therefore God exists. — Kenosha Kid

Well, give me your explanation for how a random event caused the start of time, the BB and the fine tuning of the universe please.

So [1] by itself implies a 50% chance he is the killer. And [2] separately implies a 25% chance he is the killer. The question is how do you combine these into a single probability estimate?

It is clear the combined probability estimate must be higher than the 50% alone we have for the first piece of evidence. I can see no other way of doing the calculation than:

50% guilty + 50% innocent X 25% = 62.5% guilty — Devans99

Now that've you've answered my previous question, let's consider a real example.

We start from your initial distribution of 50% probability of guilt.

We then look at the first piece of evidence; the defendant was driving the car that hit and killed the girl. He claims that the girl jumped out in front of the car and he was unable to move but the prosecutor claims that he intentionally drove into her. Given no other information and given your views on the initial distribution, you would likely consider this to be "a binary question"; there's a 50% chance that he hit her intentionally and a 50% chance that it was an accident. So using your reasoning above, there's a 75% chance that he's guilty of murder:

50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% guilty

Now, does that seem sensible to you? Somehow you've gone from "there's a 50% chance that he hit her intentionally" to "there's a 75% chance that he's guilty of murder".

1. The prior distribution is not evidence, it is the distribution in the absence of evidence, when no option is more likely than the other.

2. The second fact is the first piece of evidence. It shows us that the criminal is more likely to be innocent than guilty (75/25), those being the only two options.

3. We then adjust our prior estimate to take account of this new fact, so in this case we lower it to 25% because the only piece of evidence we have says the chance is 25%.


If all the evidence we have says the chance is 50%, all that does is provide more and more confirmation that the chance is 50%. It doesn't make it more and more likely each time, that's just not how probability works in any conception ever.

Now, does that seem sensible to you? Somehow you've gone from "there's a 50% chance that he hit her intentionally" to "there's a 65% chance that he's guilty of murder". — Michael

- Say 90% of people up for trial are actually guilty
- Then we have a piece of evidence saying, by itself that there is a 50% chance of guilt.

Its wrong just to say there is therefore an overall 50% chance of guilt - 95% chance of guilt is correct.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that in the above scenario there is a 75% chance that the defendant is guilty of murder?

Your evidence is just:

1. 50% of people who are charged with murder are guilty
2. He drove the car that killed he, and it was either intentional or an accident

If that's sufficient for you to think it likely that he's guilty then I hope to God that you're never a juror.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that in the above scenario there is a 75% chance that the defendant is guilty of murder? — Michael

1) We have evidence that 50% of people up for trial are in fact guilty.
2) Then we have separate evidence that indicates 50% likelihood of guilt (prints on the knife).

I do not think you can just disregard the evidence of [1] - it has to be taken into account in the calculation.

If you think about it [1] says there is a 50% chance of guilt.

[2] says separately that there is ADDITIONAL evidence giving a separate 50% chance of guilt

So the combined probability of him being guilty must be higher than 50%.

75% in fact.

Say 90% of people up for trial are actually guilty — Devans99

How do you know this? Or are you saying that 90% of people up for trial are found guilty? Because that's not the same thing. In fact your reasoning will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy; jurors will assume guilt from the start, regardless of any subsequent evidence, and so find them guilty, which in turn will make it more likely that subsequent jurors will assume guilt from the start.

1) We have evidence that 50% of people up for trial are in fact guilty.
2) Then we have separate evidence that indicates 50% likelihood of guilt (prints on the knife).

I do not think you can just disregard the evidence of [1] - it has to be taken into account in the calculation.

If you think about it [1] says there is a 50% chance of guilt.

[2] says separately that there is ADDITIONAL evidence giving a separate 50% chance of guilt

So the combined probability of him being guilty must be higher than 50%.

75% in fact. — Devans99

This honestly is one of the craziest things I've heard on here. Your evidence is just:

1. 50% of people who are charged with murder are found guilty
2. The defendant drove the car that killed her, but he claims it was an accident

You conclude that there's a 75% chance that he's guilty. And this will be true of every single person who accidentally drives into someone. That's ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that nothing here tells us the likelihood that he's guilty.

How do you know this? Or are you saying that 90% of people up for trial are found guilty? Because that's not the same thing. In fact your reasoning will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy; jurors will assume guilt from the start, regardless of any subsequent evidence, and so find them guilty, which in turn will make it more likely that subsequent jurors will assume guilt from the start. — Michael

You are just not getting it! Try this:

- We have a die with 10 sides - 10% chance of getting 10
- It is weighted towards landing on 10 - represented by an additional 20% chance of getting 10.

Then the combined chance of getting 10 is:

10% + 90% X 20% = 28%

With your approach, you would conclude that the chance of getting a 10 is 20% which is wrong - it must be higher than 20%

You are just not getting it! Try this:

- We have a die with 10 sides - 10% chance of getting 10
- It is weighted towards landing on 10 - represented by an additional 20% chance of getting 10.

Then the combined chance of getting 10 is:

10% + 90% X 20% = 28%

With your approach, you would conclude that the chance of getting a 10 is 20% which is wrong - it must be higher than 20% — Devans99

What do you mean by "an additional 20% chance"? Do you mean that there's a (10 + 20) = 30% chance or that there's a (10 * 1.2) = 12% chance?

You are just not getting it! — Devans99

Because what you're arguing is an incoherent mess.

Whats your problem with the OP? Hes not a Christian last time i checked (last time i checked). The forum moderator said i have to turn the other cheek. People like me are held to a higher standard.

That depends on what you mean by "weighted such that there's an additional 20% chance". Do you mean that there's a 30% chance of getting 10 or (10 * 1.2) = 12% chance? — Michael

No. I am trying to construct an example where there is a boolean question with a skewed distribution and then there is a completely separate piece of evidence for which we have a completely separate probability estimate for.

So I mean:

- There is a 10% chance of a 10
PLUS
- An additional 20% chance of a 10 due to the die being weighted.

You can't just add 10% and 20% to get 30%. If you think about it a different way:

- 20% of the time the die gets a 10 - due to it being weighted
- 10% of the time it would have a 10 anyway (because its a 10 sided die)
- So 20% X 90% = 18%
- Then we have to add that to the 10% (because its a 10 sided die)
- Giving 28%

Which agrees with my method.

- 20% of the time that the die gets a 10 - due to it being weighted
- 10% of the time it would have a 10 anyway (because its a 10 sided die)
- So 20% X 90% = 18%
- Then we have to add that to the 10% (because its a 10 sided die)
- Giving 28% — Devans99

Excuse my French, but what the fuck?

Honestly, if the above is your reasoning then you're beyond reasoning with.

Excuse my French, but what the fuck? — Michael

If a die has a 20% chance of landing on 10 due PURLEY to the fact it is weighted.

You also have to allow for the addition 10% chance of a 10 (due to the fact it has 10 sides).

If a die has a 20% chance of landing on 10 due PURLEY to the fact it is weighted.

You also have to allow for the addition 10% chance of a 10 (due to the fact it has 10 sides). — Devans99

No, you don't. If a die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10 because it's weighted then the die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10.

Just wow.

No, you don't. If a die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10 because it's weighted then the die has a 20% chance of landing on a 10. — Michael

You are missing the whole point of my argument! I'll try one more time:

1) The die has a 10% chance of landing on 10 (because its 10 sided)
2) IN ADDITION to [1], there is also an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 (because its weighted)

If you think about it, the chance of the die getting 10 is not 10%, not 20%, not 30%, it 28%.

I think you need to read through the examples I've given you again.

I don't have alot of room to play with considering my username and this is a typical online philosophy room. I agree with the OP 90% to 95%. What you said is somewhat fair (to some extent).

You are missing the whole point of my argument! I'll try one more time:

1) The die has a 10% chance of landing on 10 (because its 10 sided)
2) IN ADDITION to [1], there is also an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 (because its weighted) — Devans99

And I asked you to explain what you mean by there being an additional 20% chance of it landing a 10. The only coherent interpretations of this are 10 + 20 = 30 or 10 * 1.2 = 12. So the probability is either 30% or 12%, depending on what you actually mean.

But then you answered with "20% of the time that the die gets a 10 - due to it being weighted" and "a die has a 20% chance of landing on 10 due PURLEY to the fact it is weighted". But this isn't additional to the initial 10%. You're just saying "this dice is weighted such that for every ten times it is rolled it will roll a 10 twice (in the long run)". So the probability is 20%.

How you get to 28% is beyond me. Your reasoning makes no sense at all.

And I asked you to explain what you mean by there being an additional 20% chance of it landing a 10. The only coherent interpretations of this are 10 + 20 = 30 or 10 * 1.2 = 12. — Michael

So it has a 10% chance of 10 because it has 10 sides.

But there is an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 because its weighted.

You can't just add 10 and 20 and get 30 - that's wrong!

How you get to 28% is beyond me. Your reasoning makes no sense at all. — Michael

Say the die lands on 10 20% of the time because it's weighted.

Then 10% of those 20% times, the die would land on 10 anyway (because it 10 sided)

So it is absolutely not 20%+10%=30%.

Say the die lands on 10 20% of the time because it's weighted.

Then 10% of those 20% times, the die would land on 10 anyway (because it 10 sided) — Devans99

If the dice lands on a 10 20% of the time because it's weighted then the probability that the dice will land on a 10 when it's rolled is 20%.

So it is absolutely not 20%+10%=30%.

Because you're no longer talking about an additional 20%. You're saying that it's weighted such that the probability increases to 20%.

So it has a 10% chance of 10 because it has 10 sides.

But there is an ADDITIONAL 20% chance of 10 because its weighted.

You can't just add 10 and 20 and get 30 - that's wrong!

You're saying that there's an additional 20%, so somewhere I need to add 20%. Otherwise what do you mean by saying there's an additional 20%? I can either interpret this as an absolute increase of 20%, and so add 20% to 10% and get 30% or I can interpret this as an increase relative to the initial 10%, and so add 2% (20% of 10) to 10% and get 12%.

If you don't mean either of these then you need to explain what you mean by an additional 20%, because as it is stands you're not using it in any standard way.

Because you're no longer talking about an additional 20%. You're saying that it's weighted such that the probability increases to 20%. — Michael

No I am not saying that the 'probability increases to 20%'.

I am saying that there is a 10% probability of a 10 (because of 10 sides) and
AN ADDITIONAL 20% probability (because its weighted)

- So we take the 20% first.
- Say we roll the die 100 times.
- 20 times it gets 10 due to the fact it was weighted
- Out of the 20 times it gets 10, it would have got 10 twice anyway (because it has 10 sides)
- So its actually has to be 18% + 10% = 28%

He means there is an additional, separate percent chance not two percent chances that need to be added together.
They only get combined together later in his attempt to account for the two, separate percent chances into a single calculation.

Well, give me your explanation for how a random event caused the start of time, the BB and the fine tuning of the universe please. — Devans99

I have no explanation that includes fine-tuning, because that's a creationist myth. That aside, the constants of the universe being as they are only demand an explanation if a) they are seemingly at odds with other evidence; b) it happens with some regularity. The fact that the universe only started once relieves us of the requirement to explain its improbability: the constants are as likely as any other particular set.

To illustrate, role a die. Whatever value you get had a low probability of occurring compared with it not occurring. This is not evidence that the die is loaded. It's just that you only rolled the die once. Refer to the anthropic principle for the rest.

The best theory imo is the inflaton field, which solves not just your mystery but a great deal many other mysteries in cosmology. "God" doesn't have the power to explain anything without just making stuff up, and even then fails as an explanation.

Recurring eternal inflation explains not only that our current physical laws are as likely as any other, but also that, if our current set of laws is possible (an empirical fact), they are inevitable. It explains how a hot Big Bang could occur, why there was an initial period of massive expansion, and it does so with an "agent" that meets the criteria of being outside of time.

But is it likely?

Well, we start with a 50% probability in the absence of evidence.
Can create universes, consistent with the existence of a universe: increase to 75% probability.
Can create all possible universes, consistent with the existence of our universe: increase to 87.5% probability.
Can create initial conditions hot enough to polarise fermionic fields and create matter like the matter in our universe: increase to 97.3% probability.
Creates inflaton excitations that will yield massive inflation before they decay, yielding a homogeneous universe: increase to 98.65% probability.

Pretty likely, I guess.

I am saying that there is a 10% probability of a 10 (because of 10 sides) and
AN ADDITIONAL 20% probability (because its weighted)

- So we take the 20% first.
- Say we roll the die 100 times.
- 20 times it gets 10 due to the fact it was weighted
- Out of the 20 times it gets 10, it would have got 10 twice anyway (because it has 10 sides)
- So its actually has to be 18% + 10% = 28% — Devans99

I really don't know how to explain this to you more simply than I already have. Look at steps 2 and 3:

- Say we roll the die 100 times.
- 20 times it gets 10 due to the fact it was weighted

You've rolled the dice 100 times and it's landed on a 10 20 times because it's weighted.

Therefore there's a 20% chance that the dice will roll a 10. It's right there in your own description of what happens. The next two steps make absolutely no sense:

- Out of the 20 times it gets 10, it would have got 10 twice anyway (because it has 10 sides)
- So its actually has to be 18% + 10% = 28%

What's the rationale for doing this? And what do you think it means to say that the probability is 28%? It means that if you rolled the dice 100 times then it will land on a 10 28 times. But as you've already said in step 3, it actually landed on a 10 20 times. Your conclusion contradicts one of your premises.

So forget steps 4 and 5. They're nonsense. The dice landed on a 10 20 times, and so therefore the probability that it will land on a 10 is 20%.