@Neo, you shifted to the argument about mathematics and intelligibility because you know by sticking to the problem of suffering in this world, you would have to concede that the odds don't look good for a Christian God in this specific topic.
And yes, I am assuming that the existence of some logical world is equally probable under both competing hypotheses in the Bayesian analysis undertaken above because (1) it's good IMO to stick to one subject at a time when doing step-by-step Bayesian reasoning and (2) because a logical world seems almost equally likely under both theism and naturalism (under naturalism, one can reasonably argue that all you need are logical and mathematical absolutes for a world to exist). At least, intuitively, that is. But if you have good reasons to have the likelihoods significantly adjusted in favor of your preferred deity, let's hear them. How is a world that is logical more likely under theism than under naturalism?
And yes, I am assuming that the existence of some logical world is equally probable under both competing hypotheses in the Bayesian analysis undertaken above because (1) it's good IMO to stick to one subject at a time when doing step-by-step Bayesian reasoning and (2) because a logical world seems almost equally likely under both theism and naturalism (under naturalism, one can reasonably argue that all you need are logical and mathematical absolutes for a world to exist). At least, intuitively, that is. But if you have good reasons to have the likelihoods significantly adjusted in favor of your preferred deity, let's hear them. How is a world that is logical more likely under theism than under naturalism?
