From: jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only)
Subject: Re: Arguments for the existence of God
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:53:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.015708.13574@rp.CSIRO.AU> ahaig@rp.CSIRO.AU (Albert Haig) writes:
>Given that the universe is a member of the subset mentioned, this
>constitutes evidence for the existence of God, the strength of the evidence
>depending on the size of the subset in relation to the whole set.

Sorry, this is not evidence for God's existence.  All you have shown is 
that, based on this example alone, there is no conflict between the concept
of God and the existence of our universe.  This is what all of your arguments
appear to show, and the answer is: So what? Where is your real evidence?

>If I walked into a room, and there were 1000 coins on the floor, all tails,
>and a friend told me he had just tossed them only once each and they had
>come down that way, I would be faced with (at least) two options. 1) He is
>telling
>the truth. 2) He is lying/deluded. I would certainly argue that a rational
>person should adopt 2), because the probability of a person lying or
>being decieved is higher than that the event actually occured (hey, this
>is just Hume's argument against miracles!). If there were no other possibility
>but that he had tossed them, then, OK, I accept it, but in this case in
>question this means assuming athiesm is certian.

You miss Hume's point as applied to the original claim:

Prob. of random (natural) explanation >> Prob. of supernatural explanation

If your friend claimed that God put all those coins on their tails, you would
still think #2.  This doesn't strenghten your position:

P(friend mistaken) > P(natural,random) >> P(supernatural)

As was mentioned by another, ANY outcome with the coins is improbable, yet
this fact doesn't stop the event from happening.  What is the significance 
of all tails?  I believe this is why you try to make the failed claim that our
world is remarkable.

>In terms of the first cause argument, we are considering the simplicity of
>the first cause. The thiest does not need to have the universe in this
>consideration at all, just God, there being no universe. It is thus
>God vs the universe in simplicity. And I think God wins out here.

From my other post:

Universe  <<  Universe + God

So if you subtract out the Universe you are left with:

0  <<  God

Same conclusion, God is more complex than no cause.

>Not unless
>you are rapidly changing the definition of universe, (an unfortunate tactic
>sometimes employed by athiests), from `the physical time-space universe'
>to `everything that exists', quite a different thing, at least to a thiest!

Explain the difference to us unfortunate atheists.  What exists independent
of the physical time-space universe?

>I simply assert that God knows everything (he believes all true propositions
>and disbelieves all false ones, and has reasons for said beliefs). This is
>as simple as you can get.

No, Know-Nothing is as simple as you can get.

>Otherwise you need a long account of why
>He only knows so much and no more. Certainly, He knows an awful lot of
>detail of which I haven't got a clue, but this doesn't affect the simplicity
>of the hypothesis.

Why?  Your assertion really makes no sense.  Infinity is in no sense simple.
The concept of an infinite being is no less complex.  Remember the context
in which you brought up the complexity/simplicity issue, it was in regards
to Occam's Razor favoring simplicity.  So the debate is irrelevant because
Occam's Razor would never lead one to a supernatural explanation of any event,
because a natural explanation is *infinitely* more simple.

JC
--
Have you washed your brain today?