Another hypothetical for theists.

[GrandizerII]

If you disagree with what I said, then there's something not right with your reasoning, because such a disagreement implies that the likelihood of a world without bloodshed is higher under naturalism than under theism. This is clearly not rational.

Note we're not talking logical certainties here, we're doing probabilities.

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).