Another hypothetical for theists.

[GrandizerII]

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.