HRG

The probability of a tautology being true is 1
Nevertheless, "God X exists" is a proposition and thus a probability in the Bayesian sense (not in the frequentist sense) can be attributed to it. You would estimate this probability to be 1, my estimate is quite lower.
But it is meaningful to talk about the probability that your description conforms to reality. If people can talk about the probability that reality is life-friendly (fine-tuning argument), then I can talk about the probability that a god is real.
And when we don't have 100% knowledge, that's exactly the situation for making probabilistic statements.
"Revealed knowledge" is an oxymoron. You cannot logically exclude that the revealer is lying to you - perhaps in your own interests -; thus what he tells you is not knowledge.

Nature may be sophisticated, but she cannot purposely lie.

Regards,
HRG.

Wyz_sub10

Your last statement is not the same as the statement "god exists".

One cannot argue whether blue is blue, because 'blue' is simply a word to differentiate one observation (the area in the EMS that produces blue light) from another (the area in the EMS that produces red light). The phenomenon of "blue" is observed, and a name is given to 'tag' it for reference.

One can argue whether god exists, because god is neither observed, nor identified through the property of "existing." To say that "god exists by definition" is as meaningless as to say "the supreme burrito exists by defintion."

Yes, you would need more information to determining the probability of coming into existence, This is the same reason the argument for Intelligent Design fails miserably.

So while I agree that 'probability' is not the correct word to use, you must concede that *claiming* to be self-existent (I'm assuming you mean "with no beginning") is evidence of actually *being* self-existent.

What makes you think god is immaterial?

What supports your position that you can have no knowledge of supra-material beings unless it is revelead? That's beging the question.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by mattbballman :

I don't think you can say God and God* are the same being. We're talking about whoever finetuned the actual world here, not different possible worlds. F is the conjunctive fact about physical life being possible, and F* is the conjunctive fact that consists of all the facts unrelated to F. A being that finetuned the universe so that F* would obtain but doesn't care about F isn't the God of traditional monotheism.

But we don't need God* to step back after finetuning the constants and take his hands out of the matter. He might stand by, influencing what would have been free decisions, because he wants F* to obtain. {F*} has more members than {F}, so if we can explain this greater improbability with the idea that God* influenced things even beyond the initial conditions, we've gained a lot of explanatory power. I don't think you can dispute that the chance of me deciding to do x is much greater if God* forced me to do x, and therefore, we've reduced the improbability by positing God* instead of just God (or nothing).

Let C be any set of constants. In the case of a C-universe, it is not that such is equally improbable as its alternatives, but, rather, that in an ocean of options of non-C-universes, there is only one drop of a C-universe. We care about life-permission, but maybe God* cares that the set of constants end up C.

Again, it's only what we think is complex or patterned enough. Set of constants C has whatever pattern set of constants C has. We as humans certainly care more about life-permission, or royal flushes, but the universe alone doesn't care, nor do dogs care in the case of poker. If dogs particularly cared about the hand 5-S 2-D A-H 10-D J-H, and one of them at a poker table happened to receive that hand, then we would suspect the dog of cheating. But such a hand means nothing special to humans.

theophilus

What is assumed in all demands for "proof" of God is that existence is proven in the same way as an event and that all existants share a metaphysical sameness, i.e., materiality. What is the basis for such an assumption?

Actually "self-existent" means that he does not depend on anything outside himself for his existence.

I am not at all arguing for or against the existence of God here. Merely trying to clarify that, unless you possess comprehensive knowledge of all forms of existence and all possibility, probability statements about the existence or non-existence of God are meaningless.

Knowledge of spiritual beings (non-corporeal), by necessity, can not come through any evidentiary tests which are devised in a material framework. How would you test for the existence of an immaterial being? You'd ask for "evidence;" but what kind of evidence are you qualified to evaluate? Material evidence.

theophilus

I don't want to extend arguments made elsewhere, but all your comments suggest that you have knowledge

How is that possible in a purely materialistic universe? Rocks don't talk (metaphorically).

mattbballman

Just clicking around. I didn't realize you had responded to me here.

(i) When I say that God* is the same as God, then I simply mean that not enough distinctions have surfaced in order for me to make the difference. In an Anselmnian sensen, if God* exists and is a logically necessary being then God* is God (of the actual world). Also, I do think God continues to interact with His creation. I'm not a Deist. For example, God caused the Red Sea to divide and the resurrection of Jesus. These are not laid out by the initial conditions of the big bang.

(ii) About a C-universe, I don't disagree. I think my point must have been about the probability of such a universe coming about on its own due to either Law or random chance. The fact that a life-permitting universe comes about is astounding evidence for a creator. And I don't understand your objection about patterns not being special to humans. Known patterns within complexity are essential in determining if anything is designed whether it be in anthropology, paleontology, history, or cosmology.

matt

HRG

But dynamically changing synapses can know (metaphorically) .

Also, my WORD program knows the names of the files I've worked with recently. My computer knows how to connect me to the internet. Etc.

Regards,
HRG.