A creator/creators probably exists

Pro’s Arguments: The first actual argument appears to be as follows: Proof for or against a creator is impossible. Therefore the odds of a creator are 50/50. Any argument against this is invalid because it relies on “imagined proof”. I want to remind Pro that he is meant to argue that the probability for a creator is greater than 50%. To argue that it is 50% appears to lead to. Recall that if we agree the probability is 50/50, then I win the debate. With that remark now addressed, I will explain why I disagree that the odds of a creator are 50/50. First, let us assume that you mean our best estimate of the probability of a creator is 50/50 and not that the actual probability is 50/50, since we surely do not have any empirical data with which to compute the probability of a creator. There are two interpretations of the meaning of probability estimates and how they can be derived [1]. The frequentist view purports that probabilities are only obtained by estimating the limit of relative frequencies of empirical data indicating the validity of a certain hypothesis, i.e. where H is an event, set of events, or hypothesis, D is a set or dataset of size n (note that n = |D|), D(H) is the subset of samples indicating or belonging to H, and vertical lines denote the size of the encompassed set. This says that if n is sufficiently large, then the relative frequency of events (the relative sizes of set memberships) approaches the true probability of the event. However, since we are dealing with a situation where n = 0, we can make no estimate of the probability. This is the main reason I do not accept your 50/50 probability of a creator; it is not empirically derived and it is mathematically incorrect. However, the Bayesian interpretation of probability allows one to inject their ‘belief’ about the probability distribution of a variable (called a prior) and then to update that belief (to estimate a posterior) using Bayes theorem given new evidence and a model that defines a relationship between the evidence and the belief (of course, the conclusions derived from this method are only as good as the prior and the model). For binary outcomes where there is zero information assumed, it is sometimes accepted that a uniform distribution (50/50 split) is a valid prior. So it would be completely acceptable for you to concede or clarify that 50/50 is not the actual probability of a creator (which is something you need to argue against anyway), but that it represents your a priori belief about the probabilities. However, for this to be useful in any way you must validate the use of a uniform prior, mathematically define your evidence, validate the model you are using to reweight your belief, and show the Bayesian belief update. Pro also adds that the odds will change if Con can disprove a creator without relying on disproving properties of the proposed creator that are ascribed by humans. I would just remind Pro that he accepted the burden of proof from the start and should be wary of shifting it now, even if unintentionally. The false dichotomy: purposed creation vs. random events A random event is an event which occurs naturally. – Pro I can find no utility in accepting arbitrary definitions of terms so that they fit into Pro’s presuppositions. Pro’s response to my contention that “purposed creation vs. random events” is a false, or at least unsubstantiated, dichotomy seems to be to play semantics with the term “random event” and define it as a natural occurrence. This equivocation will be accepted as soon as Pro shows that all naturally occurring events are random, and that all random events are naturally occurring, but not a moment sooner. The term “random event” already has a well-defined meaning, particularly in the context within which we are discussing, and there is no context where this new definition is established. As I said in the previous round, if we are discussing matters such as probability and the evaluation of evidence, we risk equivocation fallacies and incoherence if we do not use definitions for terms which have already been established in the context of these other concepts. The odds of life occurring by natural processes The odds of getting 50 consecutive heads on a fair coin is 1/(2^50) = 8.88 x 10^(-16). You don’t need to divide by two 50 times on a calculator to compute this. To support the claim that life couldn’t have come about by natural processes, Pro first assumes this is equivalent to the notion that life came about by chance, and then cites a blog post from a creationist using a naïve probability model to estimate the probability of life occurring naturally (or by chance, in keeping with this unsupported equivocation). Pro does not explain why this calculation is valid at all. Just to make a minor correction for Pro, the cited probability of 1/10^238 is not what appears in the cited blog post. They compute the much smaller probability of 1/10^282. I calculated the probability given the arbitrary values listed in that blog post in order to confirm that the author has made the statistical assumption that each factor is statistical independent of each other factor (not including the assumption that each of these seemingly arbitrary values are valid or even meaningful), and they made the philosophical assumptions that life as we know it is the only possible kind of life. The philosophical assumption is easy to refute because we have no strong reasons to assume that different kinds of life, which do not have the same requirements as we do, are not possible In this universe or other possible universes. Indeed, the scientific community so far accepts that it may be possible for life to be based on alternative biochemistries (e.g. silicon) and solvents (e.g. methane) [2]. The statistical assumption is illogical. The chain rule in probability theory is used to calculate the probability of the intersection of multiple events, with equality if and only if each of Ak is mutually independent. The author of the blog post assumes the probablity model that yields the smallest probability (pure statistical independence) without justification. Ironically, if this model is correct, it speaks against the notion of a designer because it assumes that all of the properties of the universe which are relevant for life are completely unconnected. If there was a creator, clearly these conditions would be part of a design that has them working together, which precisely contradicts statistical independence. Finally, many of the listed factors are clearly not independent (e.g. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere), immediately invalidating the model. Argument for natural processes being a sufficient explanation all observable phenomena. Natural processes are mathematically modeled as constrained stochastic processes and deterministic processes. We have no examples of natural process which we consider to be actually random (constrained and stochastic, yes, but not random in the sense of statistical randomness as I defined earlier). If space in this debate permits, I would argue that we have no need for, and there is no demonstrable utility in assuming a priori that stochastic and deterministic modeling is insufficient for fully understanding natural phenomenon (especially given the exclusivity of its success and accuracy from a scientific point of view thus far) and especially in further assuming that there exists an entity that interferes in natural processes. Conclusion: Pro has so far not coherently argued for the motion and has cited an easily refuted ‘mathematical’ analysis of the probability that ‘life has occurred by chance’ as his main argument. His BoP is far from being met. References: [1] John A. Rice. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Third Edition. (2007). Thomson Higher Education, Belmont, CA, USA [2] Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, National Research Council; The National Academies Press, 2007