So a forum poster and I are having a little debate on the origins of the universe over at The Frum Skeptics Group. I think the set-up is pretty obvious here. This is already a few posts in.
"I find both possibilities equally reasonable - or rather - equallyunreasonable. Given how little we know about how universes are created(nothing, actually) - I find the very claim that either possibility ismore likely - unreasonable."
That's only on a very strict empirical sense. It's true we don't have any experience of how universes are created but it isn't necessarily the worst idea to base our beliefs about how the universe came to be on our experience of how things come to be within the universe.
It's true you can, in a purely logical standpoint, reject the analogy - but it is also true that we have nothing else to go on.
Furthermore, I never said anything about "likelihood," I asked solely about the reasonableness of the assumption.
Suppose you have to choose - accidental or intentional - why would you choose accidental when everything in your experience says otherwise. It's true that your experience could be a poor sample group, but again, THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT. I say it is a bigger jump to assume it is an accident then to match it with intent.
"You keep insisting that this universe is 'complex and impressive'. I will keep pointing out that you have no basis in making this claim."
Since I can only compare it to other things in my experience, it is the biggest, most complex and impressive structure that I know of. I keep repeating myself when I say I know it is not logically foolproof, it certainly _could_ be objectively pitiful and boring, but I don't have the luxury of that viewpoint nor the opportunity to ever get it. I can only make a decision on the knowledge I do have - even as limited as it may be.
At least with an assumption of intent I can justify my view with my experience, even while admitting its poorness in quality. But to assume the universe an accident means that you reject even your experience and lay your hat merely upon proving that you do not find the logical necessity of my view compelling.
What is your justification for assuming the universe is an accident? You have not proven that intentional creation is wrong, you have merely shown that it is not logically necessarily correct - which is fine. The same could be done to any scientific theory. Induction has that weakness.