Posted: Dec 25, 2011 6:51 am
by jlowder
Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Actually after reading everything again I probably just don't understand probability well enough. I think you might have a good case for theism being more likely than invisible unicorns.

Sorry for the delayed response.

This is a nitpick, but for what it is worth and to be precise, what I have defended is the claim that theism has a higher prior probability than rival supernatural hypotheses. I think that theism starts off with a higher probability than rival supernatural hypotheses before considering the evidence to be explained, on the basis of scope and simplicity. This is not the same thing as saying that theism has a higher final probability, i.e., that theism is more likely than invisible unicorns, conditional upon the evidence to be explained (e.g., the evidence cited by arguments for and against the existence of God, invisible unicorns, etc.).

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:But I can't personally see the difference in probability being anything but extremely insignificant. (that might be considered besides the point though)

That's understandable; I'm not prepared to defend an argument regarding how much greater theism's prior probability is compared to that of naturalism.