Another hypothetical for theists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Personally, I don't know as a logical certainty that a world without bloodshed can be attained without sacrificing other potentially greater goods of which I am not aware.

Yet another thing beyond jeffs ability. In order to have kittens..there must be syphilis.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Now your're lowering the bar for yourself. Initially, you maintained that the current world is incompatible with theism. Now, you maintain that it's probably incompatible.

Or you're not reading me well. Didn't I clearly state the word "likely" in my initial response to CL?

That's my point. Your opinion of what is probable and what is not probable is just a judgment call. You're making an emotional argument based on your inability to imagine counterbalancing goods.

What the fuck are you on about? I'm using Bayesian reasoning here. Hardly emotional.

Your proposed world is comparable to that of the Lotus Eaters - one without moral agency, honor, fortitude, or courage. Those are virtues that give meaning and value to human existence. Now are those virtues enough to justify the level of bloodshed we see in the world? Maybe not. But I am open to the idea that there are other goods I haven't yet considered that would tip the balance. You've already made up your mind - probably because you are filled with such anti-religious bigotry that you will not concede even the possibility that I could be right.

This has nothing to do with anti-religious bigotry (even if I did display this on a regular basis), but everything to do with proper reasoning. Do you agree that this world as it is has a higher likelihood under naturalism than under theism? Note I am NOT asking you if this actual world is impossible, or even improbable, given theism. This actual world could be 60% likely under theism, for all I care. But if that's the case, then a higher likelihood should be given of such a world under naturalism, if only for the sake of reason! And then following through via Bayes' theorem, we are compelled to then lower the credence for theism and increase the credence for naturalism for this one specific case, regardless of what the initial credences were that you assigned to each. Of course, it's not the end-all, be-all, because if we are to use Bayesian reasoning properly and honestly, we have to consider all factors, all observed facts, and all the evidence that we have access to. But in this one specific case, the win does go to naturalism without a single doubt simply because the likelihood of this world without bloodshed under naturalism would reasonably be incredibly low (compared to under theism).

No. I will not grant that the world as it is is more likely under atheistic naturalism than under theism. The world as it is seems to be intelligible and reason efficacious.

[The Grand Nudger]

What the one is supposed to have to do with the other...a mystery. The world seems to be intelligible and reason efficacious regardless of which of the two postulates is accurate.

---

Speaking of how things seem.....that this world seems..if it were designed or created..to have been designed or created by a flat out sadist has never escaped the attention of theology.  A significant and traditionally important portion of early christians, even, thought precisely this. The greeks were notorious for opining on the capricious nature of the gods. Other pantheons from antiquity's express purpose was as redemption from that very thing expressed as an archonic indifference. Some have what we might consider a whipping post of divinity...a god who is nothing -but- the pain we find in nature or a perpetual adversary.......the list goes on and on.

[Whateverist]

Only because it evolved. If it was designed then it wouldn't have to be that way and suffering wouldn't have to exist for it's everything to stay alive. That was my point. You're the one that used the word evil, not me.

Igno used the word evil. I was responding to him.

And yeah, that's exactly my point. Earth evolved. I'm not a creationist.

That is my what I thought you'd say.

Follow up question.  Do you think God set the natural world in motion or merely gave it his blessing after the fact.  If the former, do you think he put some english on it in order to be sure it resulted in homo sapiens (and hetero sapiens too, of course)?  

[Catholic_Lady]

Igno used the word evil. I was responding to him.

And yeah, that's exactly my point. Earth evolved. I'm not a creationist.

That is my what I thought you'd say.

Follow up question.  Do you think God set the natural world in motion or merely gave it his blessing after the fact.  If the former, do you think he put some english on it in order to be sure it resulted in homo sapiens (and hetero sapiens too, of course)?  

I think he set the universe (or whatever came before it) in motion in some way, and allowed nature to take its course from there. Though knowing exactly what would happen, and seeing that the good that would ultimately come out of everything would outweigh whatever bad there was.

[possibletarian]

I think that every species, including humans would be vegan. Assuming Allah / Yahweh / Mr God was a good god. why create animals that have to survive by painfully tearing apart other animals?

Wow, there sure would need to be a lot of plants.

Anyway, would you be ok with animals that eat insects, or is that evil too?

We assume that god could make the world the way he wanted, maybe a world without insects or animals that each each other ?

[Whateverist]

That is my what I thought you'd say.

Follow up question.  Do you think God set the natural world in motion or merely gave it his blessing after the fact.  If the former, do you think he put some english on it in order to be sure it resulted in homo sapiens (and hetero sapiens too, of course)?  

I think he set the universe (or whatever came before it) in motion in some way, and allowed nature to take its course from there. Though knowing exactly what would happen, and seeing that the good that would ultimately come out of everything would outweigh whatever bad there was.

Then you think God is incapable of whimsy, discovery or folly?  If so I think we all are better off that that poor Guy.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think he set the universe (or whatever came before it) in motion in some way, and allowed nature to take its course from there. Though knowing exactly what would happen, and seeing that the good that would ultimately come out of everything would outweigh whatever bad there was.

Then you think God is incapable of whimsy, discovery or folly?  If so I think we all are better off that that poor Guy.

Correct! He foresaw everything and allowed it. That's my guess anyway. I'd like to hear what the other theists here think of it.

[GrandizerII]

Or you're not reading me well. Didn't I clearly state the word "likely" in my initial response to CL?


What the fuck are you on about? I'm using Bayesian reasoning here. Hardly emotional.


This has nothing to do with anti-religious bigotry (even if I did display this on a regular basis), but everything to do with proper reasoning. Do you agree that this world as it is has a higher likelihood under naturalism than under theism? Note I am NOT asking you if this actual world is impossible, or even improbable, given theism. This actual world could be 60% likely under theism, for all I care. But if that's the case, then a higher likelihood should be given of such a world under naturalism, if only for the sake of reason! And then following through via Bayes' theorem, we are compelled to then lower the credence for theism and increase the credence for naturalism for this one specific case, regardless of what the initial credences were that you assigned to each. Of course, it's not the end-all, be-all, because if we are to use Bayesian reasoning properly and honestly, we have to consider all factors, all observed facts, and all the evidence that we have access to. But in this one specific case, the win does go to naturalism without a single doubt simply because the likelihood of this world without bloodshed under naturalism would reasonably be incredibly low (compared to under theism).

No. I will not grant that the world as it is is more likely under atheistic naturalism than under theism. The world as it is seems to be intelligible and reason efficacious.

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No. I will not grant that the world as it is is more likely under atheistic naturalism than under theism. The world as it is seems to be intelligible and reason efficacious.

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?