Was my first question. You answered "B". You rejected C and D because you claim they "safely" don't answer the question "of what occurred, not what is more likely" -- that's your wording. You argue that A requires G-d and random process, and B only random process, therefore the more "logically" likely is B.
Well I can see what algebraic reduction you applied -- that is by you you call in this specific case "logic". While systematic, it is not what is generally called logic.
It is a logic biased by design to exclude G-d, by claiming that G-d is solely the province of belief and not experience or reason. For example many would assert that you cannot have existance without a Creator, nor process without a Designer.
It gets back to an early discussion on this thread about geometry. To create a logical algebra (aka symbolic proof system) about geometry one must first accept as a postulate outside the proof-system a certain small basis set -- that lines parallel at one point never met at another, that the interior angles of a triangle are 180 (euclidean) or over 180 (speherical) or under 180 (hyperbolic). etc. There are various combinations of what constitute the aprior postulates, but there have to be some.
Set theory is similar. Is the null set a set? Is the set of all sets a set?
Thus if you wanted to be most generally logical -- you might have said "Can't be detemined". But you did not -- by that you added a godfree apriori postulate.
However like you, I too, would reject "Don't know". It's a disingenuous cowards' response.
Was my first question. You answered "B". You rejected C and D because you claim they "safely" don't answer the question "of what occurred, not what is more likely" -- that's your wording.
Wrong. You quoted me TOTALLY out of context. What I answered was "Since we are talking about what is more likely to have occurred, we can safely discard "C" and "D", because they deal with belief and the ability to discover what occurred, not what is more likely." In other words, if you ask what is more likely, neither C nor D adequately address that question because they address beliefs and the ability to discover the answer, not which is more likely. Unless one can make no distinction, whatsoever, between the other choices, "ignorance" nor "inability to determine" are never valid answers to a "which is more likely" question.
You argue that A requires G-d and random process, and B only random process, therefore the more "logically" likely is B.
Well I can see what algebraic reduction you applied -- that is by you you call in this specific case "logic". While systematic, it is not what is generally called logic.
Don't be a jackass, I was using the word colloquially.
It is a logic biased by design to exclude G-d, by claiming that G-d is solely the province of belief and not experience or reason.
It is not designed to exclude anything. The supernatural is believed on faith. There is nothing but faith and subjective experience (of which "faith" is a subset) to support it. If the test I've employed eliminates those answers, is it a reflection of the nature of faith, and its non-rational basis.
You asked which was more likely. Positing a supernatural, all-powerful being, like G-d, J-sus, All-h, Th-r, W-den, Z-arathustra or whatever, as being more likely than any natural process, is not a rational position.
Such an answer requires proof of an entity for which there is no evidence, and which must be believed on faith. Such an answer can never be more likely than one that does not require that huge leap of faith.
For example many would assert that you cannot have existance without a Creator, nor process without a Designer.
Many people are idiots. These boards are full of people without the slightest demonstrable knowledge about the subject manner under examination and but a cursory familiarly with the English language, but who feel free to comment on and dismiss other people's work and ideas, often based on the most capricious reasons.
If they many people could actually prove these things; not give subjective expressions of their faith and fears, then the world would be their oyster. The fact that they have not leads to about two conclusions: there is no supernatural or it cannot be proved.
Thus if you wanted to be most generally logical -- you might have said "Can't be detemined". But you did not -- by that you added a godfree apriori postulate.
"Can't be determined" doesn't address the question you asked. "Which is more likely" can be answered without resorting to twisting oneself into logical knots trying to avoid the reality that a belief in the existence of any supernatural entity requires faith. And such a person who beliefs in that supernatural entity cannot fool themselves into thinking that their belief system and manner of thinking is wholly logical, rational and reasonable. Thus, "what is more likely" can be determined, simply by saying that the answer which requires the most faith is the least likely. This isn't an a priori exclusion of the "God" answer, but simply a recognition of the nature of faith.
If you asked, "Which caused us to be here now as we observe...", then perhaps your "D" would be a decent answer. (It wouldn't be the best answer. You'd need a "none of the above" or "other" in there...) But, as it asks for likelihood, it is not even a good answer.
However like you, I too, would reject "Don't know". It's a disingenuous cowards' response.
Well, I would reject it, but I wouldn't make any silly moral judgments on the person choosing that answer. "Don't know" would be a perfectly valid answer under certain circumstances. If the person answering did not know what the attributes of this purported "God" was, or what the "God-free Random Processes" entailed, they might simply not know which was more likely.