theVOID Wrote:There are a number of problems with that sentence, some stated and some implied;
1. You are comparing God as an explanation to a strawman of the alternative position(s), by stating that you are comparing God as an explanation to an infinite number of other possible options means that God is necessarily more likely, the chances of any one of an infinite set of equally likely things happening is by definition infinitely small, meaning we cannot say anything meaningful about the chances of it happening - Comparing God to something that we cannot say anything meaningful about is a bias towards your chosen position.
If I understand this correctly you are saying that my conjecture makes the claim that "the chance of God existing" is a member of the set of "things that explain the universe" and that this member has a non-infiniestimal chance of being found true because every other member of the the set has an equal probablity of being found true and, therefore, is infinitesimal because the set has an infinite number of members. If so, then this is not the case. The premise of belief is that God is not being compared to a set of equally likely things. I reason God may be more likely based on design. This implies "the more complex the universe, the less likely some mechanical bias that allowed it must have always existed." Therefore, the probabilities become meaningful within this premise, though I'm not saying the premise, itself, must be true.
theVOID Wrote:2. You are implying that there are only two options, God and Chance, thus your probabilities are going to be false.
More accurately , I am only implying that I have reasonble cause to believe in two possible options, I do not assert this to be the case.
There are also the possibilities of Inflation, Brane Theory, Cosmic Evolution, Context-dependent physical laws and computer simulations - Each one of these offers a possible explanation for why the laws of the universe are as we observe them, in order to make an intellectually honest claim about the probability of god causing the universe you MUST take into account every other possible option - You must also acknowledge that there could many more explanations that we have not yet conceived of.[/quote]
My method attempts to use dedective reasoning, which attempts to reason what truths are inherited from some basic principal, basically that which cannot be denied regardless of the circumstance. This means, I try to set up a premise in which I do not require every explanation. For my reasoning to breakdown, one must find reasonable cause to believe that a mechanical bias does not need to exist for a complexly fabricated universe to be possible, regardless of its probability. In other words, how the universe was allowed to form if the universe did not follow some form of rules. Which, I think, would be like a rock, with no brain or consciousness, somehow having dreams; a complex result (dreams) forming from no set of meaningful rules at all(no messages from a brain, just a rock being a rock). Otherwise, if a mechanical bias does exist, I then, state, it is reasonable to believe that the more extreme the mechanical bias ( the more complex the universe) the less likely is just happened without a designer. Again, not that it is necessarily true, just that it is reasonable.
Further, I may be getting a bit overzealous here, but I before I even look at those theories I will simply ask you, if you feel there is no way I, or anyone else, may be able to find a reasonable cause to believe that the universe did not have some mechanical bias or specific "always was" mechanics when anyone of those theories are asserted as true, and yet still be able to account why this universe is possible. If not, then I don't need to read them, though I probably still will.
theVOID Wrote:3. You are (unknowingly I suspect) giving your own values cosmic mandate. To demonstrate this ask yourself the following; If the Universe was simply 'particle soup' would you still be saying that 'This must have been designed, the chance of such a complex particle soup made up of the hundreds of participants of the 'particle zoo' happening by chance is extremely low so a god must have designed it'? I suspect you wouldn't, that means you are deciding that a universe with Life is more valuable and this is nothing but a reflection of your own values - Unfortunately for you, your own subjective values are completely irrelevant, it is naught but a bias.
Wrong, If the universe was simply a blob of "something" for all time, I would say God is probably less likely to exist, but even still I would not assert he does not exist. Life is irrelavent, I agree. My reasonable cause for saying God is more likely to exist is to due to the complexity of nature not life. This is because I reason a blob of something that doesn't do anything for all eternity and has nothing we may even call form, as we generally know it, is simply less complex than the universe and existence we know. Of course, I am only human, so cannot know enough even to say that, which is why I say reasonable cause to believe.
theVOID Wrote:4. If you believe that the existence of these specific laws by chance is extremely unlikely then the existence of a being who knew about these laws, how to implement them and what they would achieve ahead of time is MUCH MUCH more unlikely.
This is bias. You are saying it is unlikely because you are human. Naturally, it is difficult to conceive of such intellect. Where, as I am saying someone probably, not must have but probably, have designed the universe because of it's complex nature, deductive reasoning; going backwards. Our perspective of intellect is way too bias to make any claim on what supernatural intellect could be like. Of course, there is some bias in a universe with a Creator always existing and a universe without a Creator always existing. What I am basing my belief on is the fact that, in one scenario a complex design seems, to me, more probable than the other.
