Another hypothetical for theists.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

If you're asking for the reasons I believe what I do, I've spoken about them on multiple occassions around the forums. As far as I can tell, that's not really the topic of this thread though.

Your question on the second paragraph is impossible to answer, since I don't think a world (much less moral laws) would exist in the first place if God didnt exist.