IF you have N hypotheses that are exhaustive
AND you have no reason to think one is more likely than the other
THEN we implicitly (or explicitly) distribute the probabilities equally among the hypotheses.

So when N = 2, the probability is 50/50.

In other words, if you think the prior probability that God exists is greater (or less) than the probability that God does not exists, then you obviously must have some information or w/e that redistributes the probability in that direction, and therefore aren't meeting the condition RLK gave where "you have absolutely no information about how to select between those answers"

okay. I guess what I really mean is that there doesn't seem to be a good reason to ever evaluate that particular question as if there were only two hypotheses, and that's probably why it seems goofy. Also because of the BBV meme. Cheers though, you're clearly right as far as the math given those conditions

H1) God exists
H2) God doesn't exist
H3) ???

I don't read BBV so maybe this conversation is going over my head

It's a standard joke to represent everything in terms of "either it happens or it doesn't, ergo 50/50"

I'm very tired/braindead today so I'm going to have more trouble than usual expressing myself, but I don't mean that your H1/H2 are invalid, I mean they are simplified to the point of being useless when it seems like there must be a more useful logical space with more nuance within which to map hypotheses. That is I agree the simplest possible prior for that question as stated must be 50/50, but who cares? something like that.

If your post contained a calculus equation it would increase the chances it was written by your brother in the minds of readers. The are right to do this even though they don't know if you have a brother.

I get it. Anything we can't yet explain increases the chance for a Christian god (or a juju in the forest). My quibble is that you claimed it is more logical to assume consciousness is caused by god, rather than a higher and more complicated level of cognitive function. Btw...

3f"(x)+5xf(x)=11

While the chances increase that my invisible brother wrote the above differential equation, it is much more logical to assume I looked it up. In fact, if you knew my brother could only exist as an invisible entity, it would be more logical to think that I somehow learned calculus! It is always more logical to assume a natural cause. My only point.

No I didn't.

Here's what confused me:

Isn't this pretty much the situation we're in right now? That is, we don't have another earth to show that evolution appears to be the reason we think about our own existence. So you seem to be saying that we can't use logic to show evolution caused it. I dispute that. Does it crack open a door for god? Sure. But I still think it's perfectly logical to dismiss god and put your money on natural causes.

Again, I get what you're saying and I think we're just talking past each other at this point. Unless you think I'm wrong about something. One last point...

I highly doubt that you'd fall into the trap of thinking intelligence is some end point or directional goal of evolution. It's not even that important in evolutionary terms. It just happens to be what we human animals are good at and the tendency is to think it's special or something evolution strives for. Of course, this isn't the case. If it were, then I'd agree the chance for god increases considerably.

H3) Several gods exist
H4) pantheism

These are not separate cases. If any God exists than H1 is satisfied and H2 is falsified. Your H3 and H4 are subsets of H1 in the original binary question.

You’re arguing from precedent. Here’s an article asking scientists to make predictions for evolution over the next million years:

No. 10 - Deadlier Malaria
No. 9 - Pathogen Arms Race
No. 8 - Rock-Paper-Scissors
No. 7 - Evolutionary Pressure from Climate Change
No. 6 - No Evolutionary Pressure from Climate Change
No. 5 - Species Change Their Range
No. 4 - Pests (and Diseases) Move North, Too
No. 3 - Species Adjust to Temperature Change
No 2 - Species Can't Survive Temperature Change
No. 1 - Mountain Lizards Decline

Other than minor alterations, ToE can’t predict much. In other words, it’s not truly a predictive theory in that it can tell us what novel features or functions (like self-awareness) will emerge. It’s a historical theory in that it can maybe tell us how some novel feature developed (once we have the precedent for that feature), and perhaps why that feature gave a species a survival advantage, but that’s about it. Put another way, ToE plus the laws of nature can’t logically get us to consciousness sans the precedent of consciousness.

I think most monotheists and polytheists would argue them as separate cases.

Wait... You weren't levelling?

my thoughts after reading most of the thread

You are probably right. But what I meant was that for the purposes of characterizing the God question as a binary question, they must be lumped together. When I phrased that argument in the thread cited, that was my intent. I think that is clear from my wording in the Probability of God thread:

.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything I said. I specifically stated that it's a mistake to think evolution is guided or has any particular direction.

The same can be said for echolocation. ToE plus the laws of nature don't logically get us there either. So I'm not sure what your point is. Maybe it's a matter of what side you are on. I am of the opinion that we are not the only animals to have cognition. From there, it is not a logical leap to think we just happen to have a much more advanced level than other animals.

You can’t say that without first assuming something along the lines of materialism is true. You’re falling prey to the same sort of reasoning process displayed in full force with this kind of stuff:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23872765
Life may have started on Mars before arriving on Earth, a major scientific conference has heard.

New research supports an idea that the Red Planet was a better place to kick-start biology billions of years ago than the early Earth was.

The evidence is based on how the first molecules necessary for life were assembled. (cont'd)

In other words, it’s not “more likely” that life on Earth began on Mars, period. It’s only "more likely" assuming materialism is true.

Grunch: So_you're_telling_me_there's_a_chance.gif

I am unclear how a meteorite gets from deep within the gravity well of Mars into interplanetary space. It cannot have just picked up DNA by skimming the upper atmosphere because DNA on the surface would be exposed to the sun's radiation while in a hard vacuum which would have to be pretty damaging. Then it has to survive an entry into the earth's atmosphere without damage. The DNA would have to be deeply embedded to have a chance to survive the high temperatures involved.

This sounds like complete BS to me unless there is something I am completely missing.

RLK,

I don't think it's the meteorite itself, but the debris from a large meteorite impact that gets thrown into space and intersects with earth's orbit. And a very large impact could create mini meteorites that find earth.

It's kind of like the drifting that is thought to have occurred on earth. A pregnant animal (or a few animals) get stranded on a log during a storm. They then drift hundreds of miles at sea until they reach new land, populate it, and eventually become a new species. It's an extreme long shot, but over hundreds of millions of years, it's bound to happen occasionally.

I have to say that I am very skeptical. It is much less likely than animals drifting on a log in a storm.

You have to have life evolving on Mars because we think that it may have been more likely, even though we do not understand that process well at all. There has to be a massive meteor strike on Mars with sufficient violence to cause debris to reach escape velocity for Mars without incinerating the fragile life forms on the debris. The debris then drifts in interplanetary space for untold years subjected to hard vacuum, temperatures sometimes near absolute zero and other times subjected to unfiltered sunlight with its UV content unattenuated. Then it has to reach earth and somehow survive entry (not reentry of course since it started on Mars, but you have seen the process) again without incinerating the life form. Finally the life form has to thrive on earth.

Or life could have developed on earth and we just do not know the details.

I agree it's quite a long shot. But I think there are almost a billion years to work with. Also, we have found life surviving in some amazingly extreme conditions, etc. We don't need complicated organisms, just some form of RNA molecules to have survived such a journey. I'm not saying I accept panspermia, but I don't completely rule it out either.

I still cannot make this work. There really is not a billion years to work with. There is only the window of time during which there was some kind of life present on Mars that could seed another planet. The meteor impact has to occur during that window. Then the question is: How long could the seeds of life remain viable in interstellar space. Are you really asserting that you have 10's of millions of years for those things to fly around in the harsh environment of space while remaining capable of initiating life on earth. And you still have the entry into earth's atmosphere to deal with.

I actually think you can rule this out. I am amazed that anyone takes this seriously. The existence of some kind of God is far more likely than this scenario imho.

I'm not asserting anything, because I really don't know. I'm just saying I think there's more room for plausibility than you seem to be giving it.

Evidence of water has already been found on Mars. If a collision caused a large chunk of the planet to be jettisoned into the cold vacuum of space, it's reasonable to think molecules that were deep within such a chunk would remain frozen for quite a long time. As for re-entry into earth's atmosphere, we know that chunks of meteorites survive, because we've found them!

Are you aware that many scientists now think most of the water on earth originally came from meteors in the first place? Again, I am not asserting anything. Just saying I don't think it's impossible. And anything that's not impossible is bound to happen sooner or later over an infinite period of time. 14 billion years isn't infinite, but it's long enough for some very improbable things to happen. Ditto for even a few or couple of billion years.