I don't remember you pointing that out. — Gnomon

Obviously.

I've had to repeat myself multiple times. I'm not going to continue doing this. If you want any more responses from me, read through my responses and ask questions about what I said.

:clap:

He won't respond to your actual criticisms or arguments because he can't. IME, @Gnomon is as disingenuous as he is an incorrigibly poor thinker.

In other words, the improbability that 'an uncreated, transcendent creator of universes' exists (e.g. Plato, Aquinas) is, at minimum, equal to the improbability that 'an uncreated, autopoietic universe' exists — 180 Proof

So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low?

So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low? — RogueAI

Also, by implication, I'm saying that, while "God" and the universe are equally improbable, "God" is completely nonevident such that parsimoniously the universe (as e.g. eternal, cyclical, a vacuum fluctuation, etc) suffices both as a physical explanation and metaphysical presupposition.

In other words, the improbability that 'an uncreated, transcendent creator of universes' exists (e.g. Plato, Aquinas) is, at minimum, equal to the improbability that 'an uncreated, autopoietic universe' exists — 180 Proof
So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low? — RogueAI

In 's Immanentism worldview, the probability of a Creator outside of space-time is minimal-to-impossible, because he doesn't allow any inference from what-is to what-logically-must-be. Yet, cosmologist Max Tegmark constructed an extreme mathematical/logical hypothesis (modal reality) of an infinite array of simultaneously existing universes, of which ours is merely one of uncountable possibilities. Few physicists take his postulation seriously, but some mathematicians might accept it as reasonable. And some philosophers may view his hypothesis as an interesting Thought Experiment.

For me, the God-postulate is also not a provable fact, or even a belief to be taken on faith, but a logical conjecture about what must have caused the Big Bang beginning of the only universe we know anything about. Hence, the Platonic First Cause and the Aristotelian Prime Mover remain as examples of valid reasoning, even in the absence of material evidence. So, as Bayesian Probability exemplifies, your posterior statistical conclusions are dependent on your prior subjective beliefs. {generic you}

Quantum Gravity physicist Stephen Unwin wrote a book, The Probability of God, to present his "simple {Bayesian} calculation that proves the ultimate truth". Of course it's a mathematical proof, not a physical proof. Like Meyer in the OP, he concludes that the bible-god is highly probable. But he also admits that "the math probability does not transfer to the notion of belief".

is making a statement of personal belief, not a fact of science. So, I'm guessing that his Bayesian calculation assigned a low prior probability to anything outside of the physical world (transcendent), which makes the calculation of a low posterior probability almost a foregone conclusion. And that firm belief makes any postulation of a transcendent creator seem absurd. Which may be why he responds to such threads as this one with the sarcasm, derision, and mockery of a true believer, instead of modest & respectful philosophical dialog.

Ironically, until the Darwinian 19th century, most scientists & physicists*1 found the god concept to be both rational and believable, and in the absence of any better explanation : logically necessary. So, what has changed since then, to make a self-existent universe seem plausible? Perhaps, it's because cosmologists have traced the chain of causation back 14B years, which seems almost an eternity. But Quantum physicists have found that the foundation of material reality is grounded on probability, not certainty. Hence our scientific worldview is muddled, whereas religious --- and some philosophical --- worldviews are based on the certainty of Faith. :smile:


*1. Newton's God
Isaac Newton's view has been considered to be close to deism, and several biographers and scholars labelled him as a deist who is strongly influenced by Christianity. However, he differed from strict adherents of deism in that he invoked God as a special physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

PS__ says that his Immanentism worldview is "an application of Occam's Razor". But that pragmatic rule of thumb may not apply to the theoretical question of Cosmic Causation. Nevertheless, if you want the simplest causal entity, a single Mind seems to require fewer assumptions than a hypothetical infinite chain of Multiverses, or Many Worlds, or pre-bang vacuum fluctuations. All are conjectural, and unprovable. So, as I said, to insist on any of those ontological explanations requires either a leap of faith, or a conditional Bayesian belief. The latter is my preference, because it's the only one that addresses the Hard Question of how Mind emerged in a material world. :grin:

If the universe happened without a cause, it would certainly be a simulation; otherwise all things need a cause for them being there. If all the stars are there, there must be a cause for each one, unless it is a simulation of stars, then there may be reason other than direct genesis of stars.

↪180 Proof is making a statement of personal belief, not a fact of science. — Gnomon

:roll:

That so-called "personal belief" is an application of Occam's Razor, or a regulatory principle for abductive reasoning¹ (i.e. philosophy, not "a statement of fact" – like e.g. 'the uniformity of nature').

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [1]