Another hypothetical for theists.

[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.