It's clear there is a Creator of the Universe!

[DougShrapnel]

I believe there is a Creator, because the probably that we live in a created universe is greater than I had originally anticipated. Actually I heard Sam Harris mention this in passing in a lecture.

Figures that I bullshited to get that belief
Number of non created universes.
Number of intelligent life in those universes with intelligence around our own.
Estimated higher abilities regarding discovering enough of the properties of the universe to sucessfully model it.
Number of those sucessfully modeled universes that would include intelligent life similiar to our own.
Reasonable estimation of properties of a modeled universe compared with what we experience.

The bigest problems that I ran into in trying to figure this out. Are of course, number of non created universes. If that number is infinate we are back to the side of likely living in a non created universe. The number of intelligent lifeforms that successfully make it from where we are at today intelligence wise, to where it would have the abilities necessary to create a successful, and convincing model, can only be ridiculous speculation. However the nature of GR, and QM seem to be likely properties of created universes over non created ones.

Plug in whatever numbers and properties you like. I think you will see that at least the chances we exist in a created universe are greater than an atheist originally anticipated.

Anyone care to speculate on those numbers?

[valenzuela]

Just for the sake of the debate I will conceed that the universe was indeed created.
However that doesnt mean the creator of the universe wants you to be happy.

[arahant]

Probability has no meaning here.
Anthropic principle.

[MaxWeiss]

There's plenty of theories about that type of thing--how we are in a modeled universe of some sort or another. While this is separate from the traditional idea of god, it's still a bit far fetched. There's not enough data/understanding to really come to a good conclusion about the likelihood or nature of the model, and there's too many possibilities to quote one as the most likely. But again, there is no evidence to specifically support a theory or even the nature of a modeling theory at large. As we have had so many technological advances, it's not hard to make jumps like that, but it's more philosophical than anything else.

At least theories like this have some kind of basis--that technology could be advanced enough to model a universe and that given the rate of technological explanation that hypothesis is actually somewhat likely----but it is still very unlikely, given what data is available at the moment. A theory like this is, however, exponentially more likely than god in the traditional sense.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for the sake of the debate I will conceed that the universe was indeed created.
However that doesnt mean the creator of the universe wants you to be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]It says absolutely nothing besides that the creator can create.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Probability has no meaning here.
Anthropic principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has little to do with the Anthropic prinicple, it is not an argument from design, It is an arguemnt that there is likely a larger number of created universes than non created ones. Without being able to determine which kind we are in, we can know that it is more likely that we live in a created universe.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just for the sake of the debate I will conceed that the universe was indeed created.
However that doesnt mean the creator of the universe wants you to be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]It says absolutely nothing besides that the creator can create.

[/ QUOTE ]
By definition...

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of theories about that type of thing--how we are in a modeled universe of some sort or another. While this is separate from the traditional idea of god, it's still a bit far fetched. There's not enough data/understanding to really come to a good conclusion about the likelihood or nature of the model, and there's too many possibilities to quote one as the most likely. But again, there is no evidence to specifically support a theory or even the nature of a modeling theory at large. As we have had so many technological advances, it's not hard to make jumps like that, but it's more philosophical than anything else.

At least theories like this have some kind of basis--that technology could be advanced enough to model a universe and that given the rate of technological explanation that hypothesis is actually somewhat likely----but it is still very unlikely, given what data is available at the moment. A theory like this is, however, exponentially more likely than god in the traditional sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes it's very unlikely, but how unlikely are non created universes? I estimate they are very unlikely as well. More so than created ones. It's very different than a God. I just thought it was interesting.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just for the sake of the debate I will conceed that the universe was indeed created.
However that doesnt mean the creator of the universe wants you to be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]It says absolutely nothing besides that the creator can create.

[/ QUOTE ]
By definition...

[/ QUOTE ]Good ole tautologies.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probability has no meaning here.
Anthropic principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has little to do with the Anthropic prinicple, it is not an argument from design, It is an arguemnt that there is likely a larger number of created universes than non created ones. Without being able to determine which kind we are in, we can know that it is more likely that we live in a created universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read your OP carefully enough. I agree anthropic principle is not relevant.

However, I still don't think the rules of probability apply apply to this situation. I think it goes to the fundamental nature of probability, and an issue that is still under dispute philosophically.