Who throws the dice for you?

[Heywood]

I agree that you have never claimed your God hypothesis is true simply because I can't disprove it; however, making the assertion with absolutely no evidence that God is complicit in entangled particle state value causality is essentially the same thing. Absent evidence I can replace 'God' in your statements above with The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny and the argument remains the same. You give us absolutely no reason to accept your claim other than we can't prove it to be false. This is why some of us have been so adamant in labeling your claim 'an appeal to ignorance'.

The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny, if they existed, would all qualify as hidden, local, physical variables. Consider this argument.

Premise 1. Quantum mechanics is true.
Premise 2. Bell's Theorem is true.
Premise 3. Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false.
Premise 4. If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, then we should observe events which cannot be explained scientifically.
Premise 5. We observe events for which it is virtually impossible to explain scientifically.
Conclusion: Therefore our reality is dependent on a supernatural element.

Where is the fallacy in this argument?
If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, doesn't that make the God hypothesis more likely than it would have been otherwise?

[Cato]

The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny, if they existed, would all qualify as hidden, local, physical variables. Consider this argument.

Premise 1. Quantum mechanics is true.
Premise 2. Bell's Theorem is true.
Premise 3. Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false.
Premise 4. If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, then we should observe events which cannot be explained scientifically.
Premise 5. We observe events for which it is virtually impossible to explain scientifically.
Conclusion: Therefore our reality is dependent on a supernatural element.

Where is the fallacy in this argument?
If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, doesn't that make the God hypothesis more likely than it would have been otherwise?

Premise 4 begs the question.
Premise 5 has the hidden premise that our current state of scientific knowledge is exhaustive.

Even if 3 were definitive, the right conclusion is that we lack sufficient information to make a claim and suspend judgement until we know more.

[Anomalocaris]

I agree that you have never claimed your God hypothesis is true simply because I can't disprove it; however, making the assertion with absolutely no evidence that God is complicit in entangled particle state value causality is essentially the same thing. Absent evidence I can replace 'God' in your statements above with The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny and the argument remains the same. You give us absolutely no reason to accept your claim other than we can't prove it to be false. This is why some of us have been so adamant in labeling your claim 'an appeal to ignorance'.

The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny, if they existed, would all qualify as hidden, local, physical variables. Consider this argument.

Premise 1. Quantum mechanics is true.
Premise 2. Bell's Theorem is true.
Premise 3. Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false.
Premise 4. If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, then we should observe events which cannot be explained scientifically.
Premise 5. We observe events for which it is virtually impossible to explain scientifically.
Conclusion: Therefore our reality is dependent on a supernatural element.

Where is the fallacy in this argument?
If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, doesn't that make the God hypothesis more likely than it would have been otherwise?

1. Assumption
2. Assumption
3. Weak assumption
4. Meaningless sentence dependent upon undefined word. If the sentence had meaning, it would still be a mere hollow assertion.
5. Inability to explain it now does not mean it is not explicable in principle. This is the argument from ignorance.

Any more bullshit?

[Heywood]

The Man from Atlantis, Sasquatch, or the Easter Bunny, if they existed, would all qualify as hidden, local, physical variables. Consider this argument.

Premise 1. Quantum mechanics is true.
Premise 2. Bell's Theorem is true.
Premise 3. Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false.
Premise 4. If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, then we should observe events which cannot be explained scientifically.
Premise 5. We observe events for which it is virtually impossible to explain scientifically.
Conclusion: Therefore our reality is dependent on a supernatural element.

Where is the fallacy in this argument?
If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, doesn't that make the God hypothesis more likely than it would have been otherwise?

Premise 4 begs the question.
Premise 5 has the hidden premise that our current state of scientific knowledge is exhaustive.

Even if 3 were definitive, the right conclusion is that we lack sufficient information to make a claim and suspend judgement until we know more.

Premise 1 and 2, I'm fairly certain these are true.
Premise 3 I'm indifferent.
Premise 4 is a conditional...there is no question begging. It does not conclude that a supernatural element does indeed exist. A condition has to be met to make that conclusion.
Premise 5 follows from premise 1 and 2. If you accept 1 and 2, you just have to accept 5...I see no way around it.

I would say the likelihood of our reality being dependent on a supernatural element is a little less than 50%.

[Jackalope]

I would say the likelihood of our reality being dependent on a supernatural element is a little less than 50%.

I would say that the likelihood that you pulled that from your ass approaches unity.

[Cato]

Premise 4 is a conditional...there is no question begging. It does not conclude that a supernatural element does indeed exist. A condition has to be met to make that conclusion.
Premise 5 follows from premise 1 and 2. If you accept 1 and 2, you just have to accept 5...I see no way around it.

I would say the likelihood of our reality being dependent on a supernatural element is a little less than 50%.

The conclusion of God invokes the supernatural and in your argument God is only true if the supernatural is assumed. This is begging the question.

I don't have to accept 5. The alternative that I proposed is that there is a scientific explanation that we have yet to discover. As an illustration: God did not make the solar system work until Newton had an opportunity to ponder skydiving fruit.

[Heywood]

I would say the likelihood of our reality being dependent on a supernatural element is a little less than 50%.

I would say that the likelihood that you pulled that from your ass approaches unity.

Remember I am indifferent toward the veracity of premise 3. So I give it a 50% chance of being true. If I was virtually certain premise 1 and 2 were true. I would say the likelihood of our reality being dependent on a supernatural element is 50%. I am not completely certain premise 1 and 2 are true which put me less than 50%.

Premise 4 I just believe that if our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, there should exist some observations which cannot be explained by science. By "cannot" I mean virtually impossible and not "have yet to be" or as a consequence of a lack of understanding.

[Jackalope]

Congratulations, you're abusing the principle of indifference yet again. It's been explained to you why already so I'll not bother.

[Heywood]

Premise 4 is a conditional...there is no question begging. It does not conclude that a supernatural element does indeed exist. A condition has to be met to make that conclusion.
Premise 5 follows from premise 1 and 2. If you accept 1 and 2, you just have to accept 5...I see no way around it.

I would say the likelihood of our reality being dependent on a supernatural element is a little less than 50%.

I don't have to accept 5. The alternative that I proposed is that there is a scientific explanation that we have yet to discover. As an illustration: God did not make the solar system work until Newton had an opportunity to ponder skydiving fruit.

The existence of such a scientific explanation would make either premise 1 or 2 or both false. If you accept 1 and 2 as true it precludes you from saying there is scientific explanation that we have yet to discover.

The conclusion of God invokes the supernatural and in your argument God is only true if the supernatural is assumed. This is begging the question

The conclusion of the argument is that our reality depends on a supernatural element. I see your point though. Premise 4 does not stand on its own. Let me think about this for a bit because I think this criticism can be overcome.

[Jackalope]

I don't have to accept 5. The alternative that I proposed is that there is a scientific explanation that we have yet to discover. As an illustration: God did not make the solar system work until Newton had an opportunity to ponder skydiving fruit.

The existence of such a scientific explanation would make either premise 1 or 2 or both premise 1 and 2 false. If you accept 1 and 2 as true it precludes you from saying there is scientific explanation that we have yet to discover.

I don't think this is the case at all. We understand that any "truth"(*) discovered by science is always provisional in nature, and always subject to revision by later discoveries.

(*) The whole notion of "truth" in this concept is a bit nebulous in the first place. "Truth" is in the wheelhouse of philosophers, not scientists.