the probability of an all powerful god creating the universe (H) verses the probability of naturalism (~H)
the probability of an all powerful god creating the universe (H) verses the probability of not an all powerful god creating the universe, including naturalism, or that there is an all powerful god except that a devil gets a veto on one out of every 1,000 decisions, or that an all powerful god created the universe and hates people (because by ‘H’ you intended only a good one, yes?), or...or… (~H).
The disjunctons in ~H are why arbitrary articulable hypotheses are basically always wrong.
among an infinite number of possible evidences, effectively favoring any alternative hypothesis
Naturalism also has things approaching infinities. Since humans don’t handle infinities very well, anything ruled out only because of reasoning with infinities isn’t so strongly ruled out, unless hard math is involved.
Another instance of the kind of thing lessdazed is talking about:
So it seems that E and ~E can be broken up into these three scenarios. E1 being our current world, E2 being a world of all good an no evil, and E3 being a world of all evil and no good. Then we have P(E1 | H) + P(E2 | H) + P(E3 | H) = 1.00.
the probability of an all powerful god creating the universe (H) verses the probability of not an all powerful god creating the universe, including naturalism, or that there is an all powerful god except that a devil gets a veto on one out of every 1,000 decisions, or that an all powerful god created the universe and hates people (because by ‘H’ you intended only a good one, yes?), or...or… (~H).
The disjunctons in ~H are why arbitrary articulable hypotheses are basically always wrong.
Naturalism also has things approaching infinities. Since humans don’t handle infinities very well, anything ruled out only because of reasoning with infinities isn’t so strongly ruled out, unless hard math is involved.
Another instance of the kind of thing lessdazed is talking about: