People have lived with morals and without God since time immemoria. — andrewk

In universe that God created, everybody have some morals, regardless of their relationship to God. God gives, or decrees, some morals to everybody, just as everybody gets a heart, brain, air to breathe etc.

In universe that got to exist from basically or literally nothingness, by chance, your opinion about morals is ultimately worthless, serving your personal purpose in life, which is random, since you came from ultimately nothing, by chance, just like everybody else. You are neither morally better nor worse from the rest, you are just living through your randomly given state of existence.

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.

(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.

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

When other things fail...

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.

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.

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.

Racial egoism? That's some messed up stuff.

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

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.

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.

What can I point to, since you really didn't say anything, just voiced that you don't agree? Voicing disagreement doesn't mean that you are correct.

What justification you need? There are premises (1) and (2) and they are confirmed by rest of premises.

It's not false. It's premise (1). Rest of claim confirms what's said in premise (1) and (2).

That's premise (1).

Yes it does, in this claim.

Why "conscious means" includes consciousness at or above human level.? — BlueBanana

We don't have tools and understanding to measure and grade consciousness, so human level consciousness is used as a reference.

You are in fact subjective about this and want logic and probability to fit how you think should be.

You say that "Santa Claus could be time travelling or quantum jumping or whatever". It doesn't matter if he is, there is still basic claim that he is flying through air, entering one home after another and leaving presents. Those claims can be measured physically. There is no claim that Santa Clause is doing all these things in some parallel space and time, invisible to us, including leaving presents which cannot actually be seen but are there. If we are only to measure Santa Clause claim by scientifically confirming or denying testimonies about presents inexplicably being left in living rooms during Christmas for children throughout the world, that would be enough to conclude that Santa Clause doesn't exist.

You say that in your opinion "there is a law of nature that no conscious entity could have created the universe, because there is 0 observational evidence for anything like that."

You confirm that it's your opinion, making it subjective, but your core statement is flawed. Because, there is also 0 observational evidence for what you claim - that no conscious entity created the universe, while something unconscious did.

You don't have any means to make any observational evidence, positive or negative against a claim, about source of creation of the universe. It is one thing to measure if there is magnesium in water, for example, and conclude that there is none, and another to be able to measure source of creation of the universe. In first case you really end up with 0 observational evidence for claim that there was magnesium in water, but in second case you don't have means to make any observational evidence.

Because you can't make any observational evidence against a claim, neither positive nor negative, you can't make a deduction about it.

You also say "if you accept that there can be a conscious entity capable of creating the universe you also have to accept that this entity can be a rabbit."

Claim in OP is defining conscious entity that created the universe as one that includes consciousness at or above human level, so what you say is not related to OP claim which means that it doesn't follow that if OP claim is true then yours is true too.

But furthermore, if you want to make a claim about a rabbit, I have already explained it. We have rabbits at our disposal, other species too, and we can do many measurements and observations about them all. You cannot discard all those measurements and observations and continue to proclaim 50% chance.

Of course something you didn't observe and measure is possible to exist. No law says that you have to observe and be able to measure everything about reality.

But based upon our available measurements we understand both natural laws and probabilities, and how they apply to a claim.

For example, there is a claim that Santa Clause exists. We can't reach Santa Clause to measure him, but claim about Santa Clause involves him riding on sledges through air, going from house to house and leaving presents to children. That's a lot of physically observable activities, with massive clues left - unexplained presents distributed, and it's all around the world. Since there are no credible testimonies that anybody actually saw person in red flying through air in sledges, entering home after home and leaving presents, nor are there any credible clues left about such things, we have precise measurement against claim, and can conclude that based upon our measurements there is 0% chance that Santa Clause exists. Mind you, measurements here are not about not observing Santa Clause in some general sense, but that there was no observable and measurable Santa Clause in specific places on earth, during specific times and with specifiic clues that come along with basic claim of existence of Santa Clause, all of which is available for us to measure.

For existence of the creator of the universe, on the other hand, nothing can be measured about that claim, as it seems to me and as presented in OP.

Consequently, the fact that you don't have any measurements doesn't diminish probability of existence of the creator, but can reveal some characteristics about the creator. For example, that creator doesn't want to be seen.

Animals also have some consciousness, as far as we are aware of. We can't measure the degree like we measure blood pressure, for example, there is currently no such tool and scale.

So we observe that various living beings do have some consciousness and that they lack awareness of various aspects of reality. Since there is about 10 million different spieces, we can say that only 0.0001% of all forms of life on earth have understanding and awareness about reality that's in line with all available earthly measurements and observation about reality.

But even if we could observe that anything that has consciousness is a human being, it doesn't follow that there are no other beings with consciousness. It just means that that's what's within our reach.

There is no natural law that says that human has to be able to reach and measure everything within reality. That still leaves minimum 50% chance that a conscious means, or conscious entity, created the universe.

In fact, we can measure and observe rabbits and conclude that based upon our measurements there is 0% chance that a rabbit can mutate to become capable of creating anything substantial from human perspective, let alone universe, so actually there is natural law about it.

Right and wrong are primarily established by the group/tribe collectively. — JWK5

Then those are not right and wrong but utility contracts. That's why in atheistic universe objective morality is illusion. It's just about utility - don't do harm to me, I won't do it to you.

But some people do like to do harm others, and they are not objectively bad in atheistic universe, they are just bad for people whom they harm. Unless they are harming masochists, in which case they both enjoy it.

On the other hand, what God reveals about morality is not about utility, but about inherent nature of existence. You cannot use secular definition for moral to describe God given morality.

Even if what you say is complete true measurement, that doesn't affect starting probability from OP, since there is no known natural law that says that human beings have to observe all concsious beings that exist. So there's still minimum 50% chance that creator of the universe exists.

But you ignore many additional measurements and observations regarding your argument. All the species that exist apart from human beings have no knowledge, understanding and awareness of many parts of our reality. Since we can see all those species oblivious to parts of reality that we can observe and experience, we can conclude that we too could be oblivious to some parts of reality which is out of our reach.

Also, all human beings, as babies in mothers' wombs, are oblivious to outer world and all the activities and knowledge and experiences a human being will get after being born. They are probably oblivious to the concept of being born and getting into another environment. That's also an observation that makes it logical to think that an adult human can be oblivious to some higher aspects of reality, paralleling a baby being oblivious while in womb.

But those observations are an extra. None of those observations are needed because, again, there is no known natural law that says that human beings have to observe all conscious beings that exist.

Whatever you would call "objective morality" in atheistic universe is an illusion, since said "morality" would have to ultimately come from non-living unconscious processes, by chance. Basically, it would be a result of a role of a dice, and as such, what's it's inherent value? Plus, there is no known natural law that says that since certain distribution of morality states within human beings is as is today, it has to be like that in the future. Process that comes about by chance is probably going to continue by chance, and change states during time.

Even more so, in an universe where every being ultimately came to existence from unconscious processes, by chance, however such being is, that's fine. Some humans would be rapists and hateful because that's how they feel most fulfilled and driven. Others would be peaceful because that's how they like it the most. And both would be equally "moral", since both ultimately came from what can be described as nothingness, by chance.

Problem with yours and other poster's (fdrake) answer is that you stop at premise (2), as it seems.

Yes, you can say "The universe does not exist."

But after that premise and initial understanding of probability we go into measuring things.

And since we can measure something, anything, and collection of everything we can measure is part of our universe, then it follows that based upon our measurements our universe in fact does exist and there is 0% chance that it does not exist, which corrects our initial understanding of probability for that premise.

Or you can say that there is 50% chance that a rabbit created the universe, as your starting premise.

But since rabbits are at our disposal to be measured and observed, we can conclude that based upon our measurements of behaviour and abilites of rabbits, through extensive lab and field work and through testimonies about rabbits througout history, there is actually 0% chance that a rabbit created the universe.

Or you can say something like fdrake said, about 50% chance that creator's hair is blue. But that claim has two elements that we have some measurements about - hair and color. We can't reach to measure color of creator's hair, if there is hair at all, but we know what hair and color is, so we can measure part of the claim from here. And we find out that even if in creator's environment there are only colors our eyes can detect, that would make a claim about any one hair color to be one in ten million, or 0.00001%, so there's immediate correction of that starting premise.

But as for OP, you don't have access to measure anything about conscious entity that's powerful enough to create a universe, in relation to presented premise. That leaves you to measure only elements within this universe that are within our reach, and those measurements cannot in any way diminish starting probability of existence of the creator of the universe. Those measurements can only potentially reveal some characteristics of said creator.

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists. — cincPhil

I don't think moral argument can be used as proof for God, but as an observation that points to God.

Problem regarding proof is (2) - that there are objective moral values. I do understand moral values to be objective, but I don't think that one human can prove to another human that they are.

We can imagine atheistic universe where people are living under delusion that moral values are objective. Delusion would come from "evolutionary" processes that condition brain to think certain way regardless if it's true or not, because it's useful for sustaining life.

So although even to an atheist it can very much seem like that moral values are objective, human can't prove it, as I see it.

There are only two states, which are defined in premise (1). As said in premise (2) - without further measurements and observations, there is a 50% chance that any of the two possibilities is true.

Your additions of "creator's hair color" doesn't answer OP but change it to something else. I cannot say that there is "50% chance that a conscious creator has blue hair", as I described in my reply.

What "constraints on the situation" apply to OP that render premise (2) "inappropriate"?

Also, how am I "conflating probability distribution expressing our lack of knowledge of a phenomenon (an epistemic probability, what do we know about a possible creator) with a frequency distribution (the non/existence of a creator in a set of universes)" since OP works with only this one universe?

And how can one conclude that "there is no reason to prefer the presence of a creator from the non-presence of a creator in terms of evidence", since what you call evidence are only our measurements within our universe, created environment, that's within our reach? Fish in deep ocean can measure or sense some things, yet it cannot conclude what's outside of it's environment. For that fish to conclude that "there is no completely different and alive world outside of this place" would be 100% wrong, for example.

One absolutely cannot do what you said.

You tried to make a probability of what hair color creator has. There is a measurement that human can see about 10 million different colors. So from what we know, chance that creator with hair has any one hair color is 1 in 10 million, or 0.00001%, being aware that there is no known law that says that if creator has hair it's color must be within certain distribution pattern of colors. But more so, you first have to calculate probability that 1) creator is material 2) if so that creator has physical attributes that lend themselves to have hair 3) if so that creator does have hair 4) if so that hair color of creator is within spectrum human eye can detect.

So it's nothing analogous to OP.

As for your question "does the creation of the universe work like the creation of things we are familiar with?", any answer a human can give doesn't affect minimum 50% chance that a conscious means, or conscious entity, created the universe.