(March 22, 2018 at 11:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ~This is Earth, not Heaven. It isn't meant to be the ideal place.

Deb, this brings me back to my original hypothetical.
If this isn't meant to be the ideal place,and I agree with you, tell me in your opinion, what an ideal place is meant to be like?

IMO, unless some being alters the rules of the universe artificially, yes, this will always be as good as it gets.
We got this far as a species only at the expense of others.
Remember the universe doesn't understand good and evil, right or wrong.
We as an evolved species have arbitrarily created those terms for self preservation. (again, this is just evolution at work).

If a god was to intervene to make this the ideal place, we sure would know about it.

Neo seems to think this it is ...as good as it gets under the control of an omni everything super-entity...
Maybe he's right and we're just weak and soft and handle the real world "as it is" ...

Either that or you still believe that this place is just a game god plays ... a testing ground made intentionally hard by him because ...

...he's bored

"Soul improving theology"

He;s an asshole, for the good of all of us..except the ones who are dead and whose souls have been annihilated.  One wonders, ofc, how starving a toddler improves it;s soul...but these are fundamentally silly people's ideas we're talking about here...so it may be pointless to even wonder....

(March 23, 2018 at 8:43 pm)ignoramus Wrote:

(March 22, 2018 at 11:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: ~This is Earth, not Heaven. It isn't meant to be the ideal place.

Deb, this brings me back to my original hypothetical.
If this isn't meant to be the ideal place,and I agree with you, tell me in your opinion, what an ideal place is meant to be like?

IMO, unless some being alters the rules of the universe artificially, yes, this will always be as good as it gets.
We got this far as a species only at the expense of others.
Remember the universe doesn't understand good and evil, right or wrong.
We as an evolved species have arbitrarily created those terms for self preservation. (again, this is just evolution at work).

If a god was to intervene to make this the ideal place, we sure would know about it.

Neo seems to think this it is ...as good as it gets under the control of an omni everything super-entity...
Maybe he's right and we're just weak and soft and handle the real world "as it is" ...

Either that or you still believe that this place is just a game god plays ... a testing ground made intentionally hard by him because ...

...he's bored

I can dream up a perfect world, where disease doesnt exist, people live forever, everyone is nice, no one eats meat, etc etc.

But see, that kind of world isnt possible, naturally. It would take supernatural elements to make that possible.

(March 23, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Then youre a terrible Bayesian is all I can say. Because what you just did, put another way, is argue that a world without bloodshed is not more likely under theism than under naturalism.

And you are changing the argument anyway, because the initial argument had nothing to do with the intelligibility of the world.

For some reason atheists never apply Bayesian analysis  to the Resurrection.  Wonder why?

That, in no way, shape, or form, addresses anything I actually said. Are you trying to run away from the original faulty point you were making?

And who said atheists never apply Bayesian analysis to the Resurrection anyway? I'm all too happy to do so, and in fact, done properly and honestly (key word here), the Resurrection would ultimately fail under Bayesian analysis due to the lack of evidence for such a supernatural event, or for any supernatural event for that matter.

Quote:For some reason atheists never apply Bayesian analysis  to the Resurrection.  Wonder why?

because the case for the resurrection by bayesian reasoning is shit . And has long been decimated.

---

(March 23, 2018 at 9:54 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: For some reason atheists never apply Bayesian analysis  to the Resurrection.  Wonder why?

That, in no way, shape, or form, addresses anything I actually said. Are you trying to run away from the original faulty point you were making?

And who said atheists never apply Bayesian analysis to the Resurrection anyway? I'm all too happy to do so, and in fact, done properly and honestly (key word here), the Resurrection would ultimately fail under Bayesian analysis due to the lack of evidence for such a supernatural event, or for any supernatural event for that matter.

We have the . It blows the resurrection  out of the water . No matter how much selective creaming and distorting  of the data Apologists try.

(March 23, 2018 at 7:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And you are changing the argument anyway, because the initial argument had nothing to do with the intelligibility of the world.

The intelligibility of the world and the effictiveness of reason have EVERYTHING to do with the argument. The underlying assumption of the thought problem is that there can even be some kind of world without God. It assumes that you can get mathematics, physics, consciousness, and a rationally ordered universe for free i.e. that it is possible for there to be something rather than nothing without God. I'm not even willing to grant you the premise of the dumb little thought problem (that a world without God is possible)...the thought problem you got from Richard Carrier.

You are getting desperate. The intelligibility of the world and the effectiveness of reason is a different argument, no matter how you put it. We were specifically discussing the likelihood of a world without killing/bloodshed under theism and under naturalism. We can get to discussing the topic of the intelligibility of the world if that's what makes you happy, but only after you grant that with the other discussion, theism loses (in the sense that its credence goes down) when it comes to the likelihoods.

And I didn't get this idea from Richard Carrier specifically. Baye's Theorem is something everyone uses in their daily lives, even when most of the time they're not even aware they're doing so, and even if most of the time they don't do it right. It's basically updating one's beliefs in light of the evidence. So basically, you want to make a cognitive exception here and not resort to Bayesian reasoning at all to analyze the existence of God in this matter. I wonder why.

Quote:This is Earth, not Heaven. It isn't meant to be the ideal place.

Then your god is a jerk 

Quote:I can dream up a perfect world, where disease doesnt exist, people live forever, everyone is nice, no one eats meat, etc etc. 

Yup we all can 

Quote:But see, that kind of world isnt possible, naturally. It would take supernatural elements to make that possible.

Who says how many natural worlds have you been too ? i can easily see a natural universe were with those things .

(March 23, 2018 at 9:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I can dream up a perfect world, where disease doesnt exist, people live forever, everyone is nice, no one eats meat, etc etc.

But see, that kind of world isnt possible, naturally. It would take supernatural elements to make that possible.

..................exactly............

(March 23, 2018 at 9:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 8:43 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Deb, this brings me back to my original hypothetical.
If this isn't meant to be the ideal place,and I agree with you, tell me in your opinion, what an ideal place is meant to be like?

IMO, unless some being alters the rules of the universe artificially, yes, this will always be as good as it gets.
We got this far as a species only at the expense of others.
Remember the universe doesn't understand good and evil, right or wrong.
We as an evolved species have arbitrarily created those terms for self preservation. (again, this is just evolution at work).

If a god was to intervene to make this the ideal place, we sure would know about it.

Neo seems to think this it is ...as good as it gets under the control of an omni everything super-entity...
Maybe he's right and we're just weak and soft and handle the real world "as it is" ...

Either that or you still believe that this place is just a game god plays ... a testing ground made intentionally hard by him because ...

...he's bored

I can dream up a perfect world, where disease doesnt exist, people live forever, everyone is nice, no one eats meat, etc etc.

But see, that kind of world isnt possible, naturally. It would take supernatural elements to make that possible.

Then why have you been giving Neo all these kudoses if you basically disagree with him? lol ...

(March 23, 2018 at 10:08 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 9:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I can dream up a perfect world, where disease doesnt exist, people live forever, everyone is nice, no one eats meat, etc etc.

But see, that kind of world isnt possible, naturally. It would take supernatural elements to make that possible.

Then why have you been giving Neo all these kudoses if you basically disagree with him? lol ...

Which part do I disagree with?