It seems every day that the concept of us existing, without an external cause, is absolutely 0%. Or at least lim x→∞ ([odds of us existing]) = 0.
I demand it, really. Why should I put any stock in a god who can't explain (1) where they came from and (2) what endows them with any authority? It's a very low bar for entry.
On just cause ;), cyclical explanations create a giant hamster wheel. Why the wheel at all? So I think he implies the need for a prime mover. I.e. a force outside the system that defines the system. Kinda like axioms are needed to make maths work
Just my 2p
But then again, I've never met anyone who became a believer through observing creation. Just as my confirmation bias leads me to see God in these stories, I imagine unbelievers tend to receive confirmation of the absence of God.
Another interesting question to ponder though: Who's fault is this? Is it God for not jumping out of the shadows screaming "I am he, worship me!"? Or is it an unbeliever who makes assumptions about how a God would act, and finds there is no God because he doesn't fit the unbeliever's assumptions? In which case, what is the unbeliever but a God himself?
In which case, by believing in one specific God, one is not an atheist in any sense toward other religions. Believing in one specific God literally means that you do have "belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities," your only dispute is to which one.
This is word chopping, not an interesting philosophical argument. Truth is exclusionary, and the space of excluded hypotheses is at a minimum exponentially larger than the non-excluded ones, if not super-exponentially, if not some variety of simply infinitely larger, depending on how you count. Appealing to the size of the universe of false statements and/or "things you don't believe" is not meaningful.
"Why did you punch me in the face?"
"Because if I hadn't, you wouldn't have a broken nose"
That isn't an explanation why the punch happened, it is observing that the nose would not have been broken without a punch.
Someone else (call them the "Evolutionist") responds with the anthropic principle - that, if no intelligent life had arisen in this universe, there would be nobody here to observe that there was no intelligent life. And this is completely logically correct. It is also irrelevant. The Creationist never asserted that it was improbable that life arose in this universe, but rather that it was improbable that it arose purely by naturalistic means. The question isn't whether we're here; the question is how or why.
The Creationist was saying, either we're here by purely naturalistic, evolutionary means, with some probability (call that Pe), or by being created, with some probability (call that Pc). As far as I can see, Pc is unknowable, even in principle. But the Creationist argument is that Pe is so low that it seems reasonable that Pc is higher. That is, it seems reasonable to suppose that we are here due to creation, not just evolution.
The anthropic principle doesn't answer that argument at all. It gives an argument about "whether", not about "how".
Or to put it in different terms: The anthropic principle says something like, if there are a billion universes, and life only arose in a thousand of them, we have to be in one of those thousand to be having this conversation. (Note that I don't actually believe in multiple universes; this is just to make the probability discussion clearer.) But the Creationist never denied that. The Creationist says: Of those thousand universes, if life arose by creation in 998 of them and by evolution in only 2 of them, it seems reasonable to suppose that we're in a universe where life originated by creation, not evolution. The anthropic principle, which asserts that we're in one of the thousand, doesn't address the Creationist's argument at all.
Unless.
It seems to me that everyone who pulls out the anthropic principle in this situation implicitly assumes that Pc is precisely zero. They never explicitly state this assumption, but I think it's there in their thinking. So for the Evolutionist in this conversation, Pe and the probability of life at all are exactly the same, and the anthropic principle does address the actual claim.
But, instead of being irrelevant, in this case the anthropic principle is begging the question. The Evolutionist starts with the conclusion that they are arguing for. That's invalid logic. That's so invalid that, to the degree that the Evolutionist relies on the anthropic principle to support their position, to that degree they should doubt their position.
(I think the Evolutionist pulls out the anthropic principle for an additional reason - it's easy. It lets them "win" the discussion without having to disprove the Creationist's big scary probability number.)
It was about the same time that a family member had died so I was coming to terms with the fear of dying for the first time, so I guess that's what triggered this.