Thomist Call In & Tjump v Matthew Adelstein Review 

Bayes is very much garbage in = garbage out.

I think you are misunderstanding Tjump's epistomolgy. He will accept anything backed up with a novel testable prediction. If you pray for a certain God to materialize a gold brick and successfully predict a gold brick will materialize, Tjump will accept that God. Tjump would accept other ways to differentiate imagination from reality also, but I don't think anyone has proposed something other than novel testable predictions that works.

Tre, if everyone in your blue state took the attitude you do would it still be a blue state? I get your impact is miniscule, but collectively it makes a difference. Aside from the other methods besides voting in which these issues can be influenced, the context of your vote would change if everyone had your attitude. So, are you an exception and everyone else should think about it but you don't need to? Or should everyone give it little thought and we'll have an even less informed voter base?

These guys you are reviewing aren't honest interlocutors. This whole practice isn't trying to get at what is true or some deeper philosophy. From all sides, it's just a sadistic game of intellectual bullying. It's incredibly toxic.

I need adderall to understand half the gibberish Matthew spews. I think his major flaw is assuming that certain phenomena (e.g., psychophysical harmony, fine-tuning, etc.) are more “probable” on theism than naturalism, based on some incoherent Bayesian model that doesn’t seem applicable in this domain. It’s a confusing way to frame these kinds of discussions. Can’t I just say I think those phenomena are actually more probable on naturalism (based on science, empirical research, whatever). And who determines who’s right? Oppy would say naturalism wins here because it can explain these phenomena without having to onboard expensive god beliefs. However, Matthew doesn’t seem to think omni god beliefs are very expensive, and that naturalistic metaphysics is actually more expensive. This just seems false to me (as TJump mentioned). “Unlimited mind” and omnipotence or whatever seem comically complicated actually. I sort of wonder whether Matthew actually believes this stuff.

Does Nathan not understand tjump is going an internal critique?

The deaf always cheat at charades

That debate was painful to listen to. I'm an atheist but a fan of Adelstein's Substack, so I was disappointed to hear TJump being such an a-hole to him. And I'm not sure how he expected to convince anyone that Adelstein is wrong by just aggressively asserting his own positions with no argument.