Formal and Informal Logic

The reason you were called on this kind of logic is that you were using the Principle of Indifference without justifying its use. Indeed, I don't believe its use is justified at all. Created by eternal being and eternal universe are not indistinguishable except for their names. Examples of things that are include the numbers on a die, cards and coins.Now, the application of the Principle of Indifference is basically subjective ('I judge that it is warranted in this case'). Many people would agree that it is useful when it comes to dice, but it can still turn out to be wrong (we later learn that the die is loaded). The argument that there is a 50% chance that God exists is an old one, and I've never seen any formal justification for it.Does it being informal make it invalid? Not necessarily, but it doesn't make it illuminating or interesting either. And the case hasn't been logically demonstrated, it was not deductively determined.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No, I said it right first time. There are many distinguishing features besides their names. Heads and tails are indistinguishable apart from their names. Created by eternal being and eternal universe are not indistinguishable apart for their names.

I could arbitrarily change the name of 'heads' to 'tails' and vice versa. I could even call them 'faces' and 'symbols'. It would make no difference whatsoever. However, there being a God or an infinite universe cannot be swapped so simply around since there is a lot more to it than that. Created by eternal being and eternal universe are not indistinguishable except for their names. When you applied your logic you did not justify your use of the principle of indifference.