(March 24, 2018 at 11:55 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(March 24, 2018 at 5:49 am)Grandizer Wrote: 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.
Youre either trying to be misleading, or you misunderstood what both he and I said.
He was talking about a world where God didn't exist at all (an atheistic world). Since we believe God is the creator of everything, we think the world wouldn't exist in the first place if God didnt. Obviously I agree with that, and was not saying otherwise on my post.
We are talking about apples, and he is talking about oranges, lol. If he or you want to debate the likelihood of a logical world (as opposed to a world with bloodshed, which is what the initial argument with him was about), then provide the reason for the likelihoods that would be assigned to such worlds under theism as opposed to under naturalism. If it's significantly higher under theism than under naturalism (and it seems like that's what both of you are saying), then I would want to know why, considering that there have been no good reasons presented to suggest such differences. Like I said earlier, this world could easily exist due to laws of logic alone, as opposed to needing a deity to bring it forth into existence. So I don't understand this unjustified confidence in having a 0% (or close to it) likelihood to a logical world existing under naturalism. It's like the theist's mind is closed to the possibility that a world could even exist without a god (ironically enough, Neo suggests my mind is the one being closed to opposing views). How about you try thinking more in terms of likelihoods and probabilities as opposed to absolute certainties, especially when it comes to matters of metaphysics?
Going back to the specific killing and bloodshed, even if just very briefly, assuming equal likelihoods for logical worlds under both theism and naturalism, what is the likelihood that a world with bloodshed and killing exists under naturalism compared to the likelihood under theism? There need not be numbers involved. Just argue under which hypothesis, the likelihood is higher, and is the difference significant or insignificant? A clear intuition tells me that the likelihood of this world (in terms of bloodshed and killing and suffering and such, NOT in terms of intelligibility or whatever) is going to be higher under naturalism than under theism, and reasonably so. To argue otherwise is just clear bias.
