Another hypothetical for theists.

[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.