(March 23, 2018 at 7:02 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 23, 2018 at 3:52 pm)Grandizer Wrote: And you are changing the argument anyway, because the initial argument had nothing to do with the intelligibility of the world.
The intelligibility of the world and the effictiveness of reason have EVERYTHING to do with the argument. 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, physics, consciousness, and a rationally ordered universe for free i.e. that it is possible for there to be something rather than nothing without God. I'm not even willing to grant you the premise of the dumb little thought problem (that a world without God is possible)...the thought problem you got from Richard Carrier.
You are getting desperate. The intelligibility of the world and the effectiveness of reason is a different argument, no matter how you put it. We were specifically discussing the likelihood of a world without killing/bloodshed under theism and under naturalism. We can get to discussing the topic of the intelligibility of the world if that's what makes you happy, but only after you grant that with the other discussion, theism loses (in the sense that its credence goes down) when it comes to the likelihoods.
And I didn't get this idea from Richard Carrier specifically. Baye's Theorem is something everyone uses in their daily lives, even when most of the time they're not even aware they're doing so, and even if most of the time they don't do it right. It's basically updating one's beliefs in light of the evidence. So basically, you want to make a cognitive exception here and not resort to Bayesian reasoning at all to analyze the existence of God in this matter. I wonder why.
