A fined tuned argument.....Heywood style.

[Alex K]

I'm on the fence, tending towards yes. And I just gave you one.

If A and B both have a 50% probability of being true then the probability of the existence of a creating intellect goes above 50%.

The reason this would be the case is because 50% of the time A is true and by necessity of it being true a creating intellect exists.

However if B is true the multiverse itself could still have been created by an intellect. Unless you can show the existence of a multiverse positively excludes the existence of a creating intellect, you have to acknowledge there is some probability, call it X, that creating intellect exists. X might be exceedingly small...but it is not 0.

If A and B are equally likely, the probability of the existence of a creating intellect is 50% + X.

You think adding more hypotheses increases your prior probability? You are doing bayes wrong, it lowers it. And why do you think just because there are two possiblities on the table, the probabilities are 50% each?

[LostLocke]

There doesn't exist a better example of an emergent complex system....the universe is the best there is.

And that is one of the points.
Since this universe is all we know, we can't really say that it's fine tuned. For all we know, this is how things must be.

[Heywood]

If A and B both have a 50% probability of being true then the probability of the existence of a creating intellect goes above 50%.

The reason this would be the case is because 50% of the time A is true and by necessity of it being true a creating intellect exists.

However if B is true the multiverse itself could still have been created by an intellect. Unless you can show the existence of a multiverse positively excludes the existence of a creating intellect, you have to acknowledge there is some probability, call it X, that creating intellect exists. X might be exceedingly small...but it is not 0.

If A and B are equally likely, the probability of the existence of a creating intellect is 50% + X.

You think adding more hypotheses increases your prior probability? You are doing bayes wrong, it lowers it. And why do you think just because there are two possiblities on the table, the probabilities are 50% each?

-bolded by me

Principle of indifference.

---

And that is one of the points.
Since this universe is all we know, we can't really say that it's fine tuned. For all we know, this is how things must be.

I considered that point in post 1 of this thread and tossed it out for the reasons stated in that post.

[LostLocke]

And that is one of the points.
Since this universe is all we know, we can't really say that it's fine tuned. For all we know, this is how things must be.

I considered that point in post 1 of this thread and tossed it out for the reasons stated in that post.

Which was dismissed mostly as a circular logical reasoning.

[Angrboda]

You think adding more hypotheses increases your prior probability? You are doing bayes wrong, it lowers it. And why do you think just because there are two possiblities on the table, the probabilities are 50% each?

-bolded by me

Principle of indifference.

Which is what you use when you are in a position of maximal ignorance about the alternatives. A probability based on ignorance is meaningless. It doesn't show what the actual probability is, only the maximum we can know from a position of complete ignorance. We aren't concerned with ignorant probabilities but ones based on knowledge. If I want an ignorant opinion on how the universe came to be, I'll ask Bob the grocer. If all you've got backing your probability estimate is ignorance, it's not worth anything.

[Heywood]

I considered that point in post 1 of this thread and tossed it out for the reasons stated in that post.

Which was dismissed mostly as a circular logical reasoning.

I dismissed your dismissal as poppycock because you failed to show it to be circular logic.

I acknowledge the point you made....before you made. I then gave a reason for discounting that possibility. There is nothing circular about my reasoning for discounting that possibility. If there is, quote it and show why it is circular reasoning.

---

Which is what you use when you are in a position of maximal ignorance about the alternatives. A probability based on ignorance is meaningless. It doesn't show what the actual probability is, only the maximum we can know from a position of complete ignorance. We aren't concerned with ignorant probabilities but ones based on knowledge. If I want an ignorant opinion on how the universe came to be, I'll ask Bob the grocer. If all you've got backing your probability estimate is ignorance, it's not worth anything.

Whoa!.....we got a badass here.

Maybe you can enlighten us on the actual probabilities of A and B so we will no longer be in a position of ignorance.

[Angrboda]

Which is what you use when you are in a position of maximal ignorance about the alternatives. A probability based on ignorance is meaningless. It doesn't show what the actual probability is, only the maximum we can know from a position of complete ignorance. We aren't concerned with ignorant probabilities but ones based on knowledge. If I want an ignorant opinion on how the universe came to be, I'll ask Bob the grocer. If all you've got backing your probability estimate is ignorance, it's not worth anything.

Whoa!.....we got a badass here.

Maybe you can enlighten us on the actual probabilities of A and B so we will no longer be in a position of ignorance.

Since I'm not the one making the claim about A, I'm not the one who needs to provide them. Put up or shut up.

[Angrboda]

If A and B both have a 50% probability of being true then the probability of the existence of a creating intellect goes above 50%.

The reason this would be the case is because 50% of the time A is true and by necessity of it being true a creating intellect exists.

However if B is true the multiverse itself could still have been created by an intellect. Unless you can show the existence of a multiverse positively excludes the existence of a creating intellect, you have to acknowledge there is some probability, call it X, that a creating intellect exists. X might be exceedingly small...but it is not 0.

If A and B are equally likely, the probability of the existence of a creating intellect is 50% + X.

The principle of indifference states that if the n possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names, then each possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n.

Since you're now claiming we have additional information (that B could be caused by an intellect), then the Principle of Indifference no longer applies (indeed, never applied, as we have many ways of distinguishing these alternatives). So you've just eliminated the Principle of Indifference as a valid rule for applying probabilities, so you cannot any longer say that the probabilities should be assigned 50 / 50 on that basis. You never could. You've misapplied the Principle of Indifference.

[Mister Agenda]

Your question rephrased is, Could an omnipotent God create a sterile/not sterile universe.

The way you've re-phrased it, it ceases to be the same question. The actual question is whether an omnipotent God create a universe in which life as we know it should not be able to survive, but exists anyway. A sterile universe is one without life in it. The proposed universe is one in which a natural explanation for life is impossible, but it exists anway.

Your question is nonsensical.

Your 're-phrasing' is nonsensical, and the motive for making it so seems obvious. Of course an omnipotent God could sustain life in a universe hostile to its existence, it would be a trivial exercise to an omnipotent being, but by re-phrasing it as a contradiction you let God off the hook for our being in the only kind of universe you would expect to have life if there were no God.

Why should theists have to answer nonsensical questions?

Allow me to rephrase your question: Why should theists have to answer questions honestly?

[Alex K]

The principle of indifference states that if the n possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names, then each possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n.

Since you're now claiming we have additional information (that B could be caused by an intellect), then the Principle of Indifference no longer applies (indeed, never applied, as we have many ways of distinguishing these alternatives). So you've just eliminated the Principle of Indifference as a valid rule for applying probabilities, so you cannot any longer say that the probabilities should be assigned 50 / 50 on that basis. You never could. You've misapplied the Principle of Indifference.

^ Exactely