Was the universe created by purpose or by chance?

The question has two possible outcomes so we should initially assign a 50% probability to each outcome.

Start by examining the universes origins. The Big Bang. Was this by chance or the work of a creator? I’ll assign a 50% probability to each outcome. Combining this probability with the initial staring probability:

50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance of creator

Next examine the universe itself. What are the chances that the evident fine tuning is the result of a fine tuner? Again I’ll assign a 50% probability:

75% + 25% x 50% = 87.5% chance of a creator

Next examine the theoreticals. The Prime mover argument. Logically we need a creator (so our best meta-physical argument goes). It’s a bit abstract so I’ll assign 25% probability to it being correct:

87.5% + 12.5% x 50% = 93.75% chance of a creator.

Next we should allow for actualities that count against a creator god. I am not aware of any such.

My definition of God is strictly limited to a benevolent creator. Above I’ve addressed the creator part; I have separate arguments for why he is benevolent.

what does "created by chance" mean?

also, just lol at "The question has two possible outcomes so we should initially assign a 50% probability to each outcome."

The universe is 100% a joke. And you fell for it.

What is your source for this? Who taught you this is a good way to calculate the odds of the existence of a creator?

The Big Bang is not "the origin of the universe", it is scientific theory describing how it developed from an early state.

It does not describe what caused that early state.

I made it up. Not sure if it’s new or not. It works I think whenever you have multiple pieces of evidence for / against some statement. Explained more clearly below (I’ve used different % numbers so the derivation is clearer).

Proposition 1 - There was a creator god

Assume 50% probability true to start with

Big Bang is evidence for creator at 60% probability so combining probabilities:

50% + 50% x 60% = 80%

Fine tuning is evidence for the creator 75% probability so:

80% + 20% x 75% = 95%

Prime mover is evidence for the creator 25% probability so:

95% + 5% x 25% = 96.25% chance of a creator god is

To double check, I’ve done the inverse proposition below:

Proposition 2 - there was not a creator god

Assume 50% probability true to start with

Big Bang is evidence against no creator 40% probability so combining probabilities:

50% x 40% = 20%


Fine tuning is evidence against no creator 25% probability so:

20% x 25% = 5%

Prime mover is evidence against no creator 75% probability so:

5% x 75% = 3.75% chance of no creator god

Was this post created out of trolling or out of ignorance about probability?

The question has two possible outcomes so we should initially assign a 50% probability to each outcome...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You might want to look at Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God, where he uses a similar strategy in treating the classic arguments for the existence of God as probabilistic arguments in an inductive framework (here's a shorter summary).

As to your specific argument here, I would recommend looking into how probability works. Specifically, you should look at Bayes Theorem for an explanation of how new information affects the probability of something being true.

The biggest mistake you are making here is that you are double-counting the probability that a creator exists. For instance, you say that we should start with the probability that a creator exists as 50%. You then say that, given that there was a Big Bang, the probability that there was a creator is 40%. That's fine - you're making up the numbers, but whatever. But you then multiply 40% and 50% to get the final probability of no creator and the Big Bang happening. This is a mistake. The 50% probability of there being no creator is already included in the 40% probability that there is no creator and the Big Bang happened. Multiplying these numbers together just ends up counting this probability twice.

Hopefully the universe wasn't created for no particular purpose by God.

That's how I'd have done it!

I dont think you followed the calculation; I have not double counted:

“Proposition 1 - There was a creator god
Assume 50% probability true to start with”

- so here we have two possible outcomes and no evidence either way (YET) so 50% created and 50% not created is the best assumption

“Big Bang is evidence for creator at 60% probability so combining probabilities:
50% + 50% x 60% = 80%”

- So I am estimating that the Big Bang as evidence BY ITSELF makes a creator 60% likely in addition the the 50% we already have. For this you have to add probabilities as shown above.

I edited your post in a way to add up all the probabilities of no creator. Turns out I get the opposite result.

Your math is wrong. Big Bang is not evidence for random creation so it is evidence against so you multiply rather than add:

Proposition: ‘universe created by chance’Assume 50% probability true to start with

Big Bang is evidence against by chance 40% probability so combining probabilities:

50% x 40% = 20% chance by chance etc...

Of course, the math is wrong. I got it from you. What is your background in math again?

If the Big Bang as evidence by itself makes a creator 60% likely, what additional evidence is being added to the Big Bang so that it is now 80% likely that a creator exists? For instance, imagine we switched the order of your operation, where we start with a 60% likelihood that a creator exists given the Big Bang. Now what? What are we adding to our calculation such that it should increase to 80%? Given the Big Bang (60%) and x (50%), a creator god is 80% likely. What is x?

Again, what you are looking for here is Bayes's Theorem. Save yourself some effort.

For a proposition that is true or false, and no evidence is admitted either way (YET), then the chance it is true is 50%. In my argument I start at this point and then adjust the number up/down by considering the evidence for/against.

The actual starting point / order of the calculation does not makes any difference. For example, below I’ve done it in the other order:

- start by assuming Big Bang is 60% evidence for a creator; leaving 40% unknown.
- Then assuming that we have no further evidence (I’ve skipped a bit here), we can say we must by neutral on the 40% unknown and say that it’s 50% creator 50% chance
- So thats 60% + 40% x 50% = 80% chance of creator (same as before)
- if you add in the missing steps you get 96.25% chance of a creator (same as before)

Thanks for the link I will check it out. Not having done probability, I did not know the name of the method I wa using!

It's not the method you're using. That's the problem with your maths.

Yeah I checked Bayes theorum out and I’m not sure it’s exactly what I need. What is wrong with the calculation above? Could you post a corrected version?

Doh I made an error in the math that I now get. Thanks for all the help!

There has to be an unmoved mover... so 100% it was created on purpose

The whole on purpose or by accident comes down to whether we live on a spinning ball came from monkeys and a Big Bang .. basically everything came from nothing for no reason

Or

We live on a flat and motionless earth and shows a higher power.. everything is intelligently designed and has a purpose

Let's suppose the first part is true, why does this imply a creator?

What a delightful outcome! Dangh, I take it back that this thread was probably just trolling


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Assigning 50% probability because there's two outcomes is like saying the Parkland shooter is either 50% guilty or 50% not guilty. We'll have to wait and see what the verdict is after a jury trial to determine which was right.

Schrodinger's Shooter

He's in a quantum superposition right now. If you tried to examine him before the trial, he might collapse to a wave form.