Another hypothetical for theists.

[possibletarian]

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.

Exactly !

[GrandizerII]

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

Which part do I disagree with?

He doesn't want to grant that this world is more likely under naturalism than under theism. Since this is the case, the implication (according to his dismissal) is that the fantasy world you describe is not more likely under theism than under naturalism.

To make sense out of this, here's some basic (and simplified) elaboration:

We have two competing explanations of the kind of world we live in (i.e., a world that is with bloodshed and killing, lots of bloodshed and killing). One that posits a deity (theism) and one that doesn't (naturalism)

For each of these explanations, there are two possible outcomes and two likelihoods to consider:

First outcome: World with bloodshed
Second outcome: World without bloodshed

For each of the competing ideas (theism vs. naturalism), if the likelihood of one of the possible outcomes is P, then the likelihood of the other is 1-P. So, say, the likelihood of a world with bloodshed under theism is 60%, then the likelihood of a world without bloodshed under theism is 40% (100% - 60%).

According to Neo, the likelihood of a world with bloodshed is not lower under theism than under naturalism, but higher. This means that the likelihood of a world with bloodshed under naturalism (call it P') is lower than 60%, which means that the likelihood of a world without bloodshed is higher than 40% under naturalism (higher than the one under theism).

Is this reasonable? You're saying that such a world without bloodshed would be impossible under naturalism (an extreme which, by the way, should be avoided unless you can demonstrate that such a world is logically impossible under naturalism, but I digress), but Neo is arguing (most likely unknowingly) that it not only is possible, but likelier under naturalism than under theism.

[Succubus]

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?

For the same reason we don't apply Bayesian analysis to the story of Snow White.

---

...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...

What choice did God have with regards to pi?
Divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter and you get 3.14159265359. It cannot possibly be any other value. Try it, take a sheet of paper, a compass and a straight edge and divide up the circle as many times as you see fit then use the straight edge to create triangles. You now have geometry which leads to mathematics. It cannot possibly be any other way.

No god's required.

Cue... 'Yeahbut, if the starting conditions of the universe were out by just......'

[GrandizerII]

@Neo, you shifted to the argument about mathematics and intelligibility because you know by sticking to the problem of suffering in this world, you would have to concede that the odds don't look good for a Christian God in this specific topic.

And yes, I am assuming that the existence of some logical world is equally probable under both competing hypotheses in the Bayesian analysis undertaken above because (1) it's good IMO to stick to one subject at a time when doing step-by-step Bayesian reasoning and (2) because a logical world seems almost equally likely under both theism and naturalism (under naturalism, one can reasonably argue that all you need are logical and mathematical absolutes for a world to exist). At least, intuitively, that is. But if you have good reasons to have the likelihoods significantly adjusted in favor of your preferred deity, let's hear them. How is a world that is logical more likely under theism than under naturalism?

[Catholic_Lady]

Which part do I disagree with?

He doesn't want to grant that this world is more likely under naturalism than under theism. Since this is the case, the implication (according to his dismissal) is that the fantasy world you describe is not more likely under theism than under naturalism.

To make sense out of this, here's some basic (and simplified) elaboration:

We have two competing explanations of the kind of world we live in (i.e., a world that is with bloodshed and killing, lots of bloodshed and killing). One that posits a deity (theism) and one that doesn't (naturalism)

For each of these explanations, there are two possible outcomes and two likelihoods to consider:

First outcome: World with bloodshed
Second outcome: World without bloodshed

For each of the competing ideas (theism vs. naturalism), if the likelihood of one of the possible outcomes is P, then the likelihood of the other is 1-P. So, say, the likelihood of a world with bloodshed under theism is 60%, then the likelihood of a world without bloodshed under theism is 40% (100% - 60%).

According to Neo, the likelihood of a world with bloodshed is not lower under theism than under naturalism, but higher. This means that the likelihood of a world with bloodshed under naturalism (call it P') is lower than 60%, which means that the likelihood of a world without bloodshed is higher than 40% under naturalism (higher than the one under theism).

Is this reasonable? You're saying that such a world without bloodshed would be impossible under naturalism (an extreme which, by the way, should be avoided unless you can demonstrate that such a world is logically impossible under naturalism, but I digress), but Neo is arguing (most likely unknowingly) that it not only is possible, but likelier under naturalism than under theism.

Youre either trying to be misleading, or you misunderstood what both he and I said.

He was talking about a world where God didn't exist at all (an atheistic world). Since we believe God is the creator of everything, we think the world wouldn't exist in the first place if God didnt. Obviously I agree with that, and was not saying otherwise on my post.

[GrandizerII]

He doesn't want to grant that this world is more likely under naturalism than under theism. Since this is the case, the implication (according to his dismissal) is that the fantasy world you describe is not more likely under theism than under naturalism.

To make sense out of this, here's some basic (and simplified) elaboration:

We have two competing explanations of the kind of world we live in (i.e., a world that is with bloodshed and killing, lots of bloodshed and killing). One that posits a deity (theism) and one that doesn't (naturalism)

For each of these explanations, there are two possible outcomes and two likelihoods to consider:

First outcome: World with bloodshed
Second outcome: World without bloodshed

For each of the competing ideas (theism vs. naturalism), if the likelihood of one of the possible outcomes is P, then the likelihood of the other is 1-P. So, say, the likelihood of a world with bloodshed under theism is 60%, then the likelihood of a world without bloodshed under theism is 40% (100% - 60%).

According to Neo, the likelihood of a world with bloodshed is not lower under theism than under naturalism, but higher. This means that the likelihood of a world with bloodshed under naturalism (call it P') is lower than 60%, which means that the likelihood of a world without bloodshed is higher than 40% under naturalism (higher than the one under theism).

Is this reasonable? You're saying that such a world without bloodshed would be impossible under naturalism (an extreme which, by the way, should be avoided unless you can demonstrate that such a world is logically impossible under naturalism, but I digress), but Neo is arguing (most likely unknowingly) that it not only is possible, but likelier under naturalism than under theism.

Youre either trying to be misleading, or you misunderstood what both he and I said.

He was talking about a world where God didn't exist at all (an atheistic world). Since we believe God is the creator of everything, we think the world wouldn't exist in the first place if God didnt. Obviously I agree with that, and was not saying otherwise on my post.

We are talking about apples, and he is talking about oranges, lol. If he or you want to debate the likelihood of a logical world (as opposed to a world with bloodshed, which is what the initial argument with him was about), then provide the reason for the likelihoods that would be assigned to such worlds under theism as opposed to under naturalism. If it's significantly higher under theism than under naturalism (and it seems like that's what both of you are saying), then I would want to know why, considering that there have been no good reasons presented to suggest such differences. Like I said earlier, this world could easily exist due to laws of logic alone, as opposed to needing a deity to bring it forth into existence. So I don't understand this unjustified confidence in having a 0% (or close to it) likelihood to a logical world existing under naturalism. It's like the theist's mind is closed to the possibility that a world could even exist without a god (ironically enough, Neo suggests my mind is the one being closed to opposing views). How about you try thinking more in terms of likelihoods and probabilities as opposed to absolute certainties, especially when it comes to matters of metaphysics?

Going back to the specific killing and bloodshed, even if just very briefly, assuming equal likelihoods for logical worlds under both theism and naturalism, what is the likelihood that a world with bloodshed and killing exists under naturalism compared to the likelihood under theism? There need not be numbers involved. Just argue under which hypothesis, the likelihood is higher, and is the difference significant or insignificant? A clear intuition tells me that the likelihood of this world (in terms of bloodshed and killing and suffering and such, NOT in terms of intelligibility or whatever) is going to be higher under naturalism than under theism, and reasonably so. To argue otherwise is just clear bias.

[Amarok]

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...

You can and god has fuck all to do with math. Godless universes are mathematical

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12390

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Neo, you shifted to the argument about mathematics and intelligibility because you know by sticking to the problem of suffering in this world, you would have to concede that the odds don't look good for a Christian God in this specific topic.

And yes, I am assuming that the existence of some logical world is equally probable under both competing hypotheses in the Bayesian analysis undertaken above because (1) it's good IMO to stick to one subject at a time when doing step-by-step Bayesian reasoning and (2) because a logical world seems almost equally likely under both theism and naturalism (under naturalism, one can reasonably argue that all you need are logical and mathematical absolutes for a world to exist). At least, intuitively, that is. But if you have good reasons to have the likelihoods significantly adjusted in favor of your preferred deity, let's hear them. How is a world that is logical more likely under theism than under naturalism?

That assumption is the fatal flaw of your thought problem - that the existence or non-existence of God affects one, and only one variable – the degree of violence and disaster of the world. From this faulty premise you propose that the existence of God is unlikely.

I do not accept your first premise because I do not find it plausible that only one variable would be affected by the existence of God. You deliberately ignore potential goods in your calculation, goods that undermine your premise. These I have previously mentioned and are as follows:

Moral Agency
Voluntary Love
Courage and Fortitude
Ambition and Victory
Rational Order
Rational Thought
and so on...

To me the entire hypothetical is implausible. It makes no sense to speculate about the implications of conditions that in themselves are nonsense.

[The Grand Nudger]

-all of the above exists regardless of whether or not god exists.

Still, though, for all of the above "goods".....Jeff was somehow incapable of making any of them unless he made dysentery, as well....allegedly.

You can't have moral agency unless you also have ebola.  

[Neo-Scholastic]

-all of the above exists regardless of whether or not god exists.

Still, though, for all of the above "goods".....Jeff was somehow incapable of making any of them unless he made dysentery, as well....allegedly.

You can't have moral agency unless you also have ebola.  

Repeating a logical fallacy does make it valid and just makes you look foolish. It remains an argument from incredulity.