(March 24, 2018 at 9:04 am)Grandizer Wrote: @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?
That assumption is the fatal flaw of your thought problem - that the existence or non-existence of God affects one, and only one variable – the degree of violence and disaster of the world. From this faulty premise you propose that the existence of God is unlikely.
I do not accept your first premise because I do not find it plausible that only one variable would be affected by the existence of God. You deliberately ignore potential goods in your calculation, goods that undermine your premise. These I have previously mentioned and are as follows:
Moral Agency
Voluntary Love
Courage and Fortitude
Ambition and Victory
Rational Order
Rational Thought
and so on...
To me the entire hypothetical is implausible. It makes no sense to speculate about the implications of conditions that in themselves are nonsense.
