Evidence for creation discussed

In order to draw a possibility one needs to know what the possibilities are, meaning what could have gone right or wrong, the odds!?

More than the probability of some event we need to know the frequency with which potential conditions for it are repeated.

To illustrate: Imagine you have a mysterious caller one day who invites you to take part in an 'experiment'. There's a cash prize if you're successful so you agree to go along. You're asked to take a coin from your pocket and toss it ten times - the experimenter tells you that you will obtain ten heads in a row.

You doubt this very much because you have some understanding of the unlikelyhood of that outcome but you give it your best shot. You toss your coin and get ten heads!

What would you think of that?

The mystery discussed through evidence is the likelihood; since we cannot state what caused the beginning, how we figure out the odds isn't something we can even start to calculate, one must know the possible probabilities, what did what, when, and where and why? Given in the natural world, those are all unknown and impossible, it could have started itself out of nothing; a transcendent cause is the only one that has a ring of truth to it.

It goes beyond initial conditions and to the fundamental properties of nature itself, and how those values and properties were set and came to be.

More important than any 'probabilities' is that there seems to be no reason why the fine-tuning values should be the way that they are. That is, our universe doesn't seem to be something that can't not exist, but gives every indication that it is contingent. And if it is contingent, then it can't be uncaused or self-caused.

Galactic and stellar evolution entirely naturalistic? Yes. The fine-tuned physical constants and regularities of nature that make such galactic-stellar evolution possible? Not as confident. Origin of life? Presently, no confidence at all that it was entirely naturalistic.

There is an inconsistency with your argument, though. You are willing to accept forensic science as valid, legitimate scientific evidence when it seems to suit you (like here), but reject it when it doesn't (like with paleontology). Paleontology employs the same type of reasoning and evidence gathering that forensics does.

Did you watch it?

In the absence of compelling evidence one way or the other I think it's prudent to hold off from forming a conclusion. But if you approach this issue with a certain bias then you'll probably prefer one conclusion over another no matter where the evidence points.

But that raises the question of what kind of 'transcendent cause' you have in mind?

Actually, the lack of evidence tells a lot too, which was why a discussion on the evidence I thought would be thought-provoking.

"the lack of evidence tells a lot too" - that might need explaining?

I agree the lack of evidence that the universe created itself suggests it didn't. Acknowledging it couldn't create itself out of anything leads to the next question how then? Avoiding deciding on the first question by simply hoping something shows itself later is not viewing the question according to our evidence; that is wishful thinking alone, nothing more. We cannot move to the next question without looking at what we see and deciding, given what we do see. To refuse to do that leaves us stuck in a holding pattern that could be indefinitely waiting for something more that isn't here now and may not ever show itself, because it isn't ever coming.

I haven't heard anyone suggest the Universe somehow 'created itself' - where does that come from? I have heard theoretical Cosmologists suggest various precursor states from which the Universe emerged.

A precursor state is what exactly, evolving without a beginning?

Well there's the so-called 'Membrane' model in which two such 'Branes' collide and the result is the Big Bang. I think this has been around for some time and hasn't yet been dismissed for any theoretical flaw.

If the "Membrane" model has something part of this universe, then it isn't answering the question of where everything came from, because as we travel back, what caused this place cannot be anything to do with it, or we have not reached the beginning yet.

Theoretically the model stands up. If it didn't it would have been dismissed.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "has something part of this universe"? It proposes that our Universe emerged from a collision between Branes, so there's no reason why we should see direct evidence of such a precursor state.

You are telling me, and correct me if I'm wrong these "Membrane" are not part of the physical universe, they stand apart, something completely other?

That is my understanding.

Exactly how do we know something like that is real? Where did it come from if it isn't part of the universe as is? Is there some evidence we can see, measure, calculate, and weigh, or is this just something other than God that people came up with, because they know something has to transcend the universe, and as soon as God is an answer, all kinds of other things now matter?

'God' really isn't an answer as such to anything and raises more questions than it settles.

I think 'God' is more of an answer for the individual's personal problems and doubts?