Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

You're right, I'm sorry. It was 0.0001. That's still pretty small, though. Is that really what you think it is?

It takes rather a lot of evidence to even find your God in hypothesis space

Don't think of my God, then. Any deity at all.

Do we want to be Bayesian about it? Of course we do. Let's imagine two universes. One formed spontaneously, one was created. Which is more likely to occur?

Personally I think that the created one seems more likely. Apparently you think that the spontaneity is more believable. But as for the probability that any given universe is created rather than accidental, 0.0001 seems unrealistically low. And if that's not the number you actually believe—it was just an example—what is?

Let's imagine two universes. One formed spontaneously, one was created. Which is more likely to occur?

Personally I think that the created one seems more likely.

What evidence makes you think this?

2Jack13y

What would be your prior probability for God existing before updating on your own existence?

11JoshuaZ13y

It isn't obvious that this is at all meaningful, and gets quickly into deep issues of anthropics and observer effects. But aside from that, there's some intuition here that you seem to be using that may not be shared. Moreover, it also has the weird issue that most forms of theism have a deity that is omnipotent and so should exist over all universes. Note also that the difference isn't just spontaneity v. created. What does it mean for a universe to be created? And what does it mean to call that creating aspect a deity? One of the major problems with first cause arguments and similar notions is that even when one buys into them it is extremely difficult to jump from their to theism. Relevant SMBC.

6

Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013

6

6

6

Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013

6

6