If you know the marginals (the unconditional probability of a universe and the unconditional probability of an all-loving, all-powerful God) then the relationship between Tommy's two probabilities can be found through the Bayesian techniques used by Swinburne.

OK, that rings a bell.

I think I would argue no, as I think your first conditional probability is 1. (That is, an ALAPG would necessarily have both the desire and power to create a Universe, to spread his beneficence.)

1 is certainly a plausible value to assign, although one could argue that God doesn't necessarily create the universe, since some theists argue he has the freedom to refrain from doing so. (I don't know if Swinburne takes this line. My guess is that he thinks that God doesn't have freedom at all, since for Swinburne one has freedom, roughly, only if one must choose between one's self-interest and the moral course of action. Since God always does the morally best, then in any world in which he exists, he creates a universe.)

Admittedly, you didn't say that God necessarily creates the universe, but necessarily has the desire to creat the universe, which is a different claim, though it might, in God's case, amount to the same thing.

1 is certainly a plausible value to assign, although one could argue that God doesn't necessarily create the universe, since some theists argue he has the freedom to refrain from doing so.

Yes, but in this context, it equates to saying that he has the freedom not to be all-loving. Which may be theologically of interest, but would offend against one of our premises here were he ever to make that choice. (One might argue that God needs both the ability to choose not to do good and the desire always to choose good in order to be considered as all-loving rather than just mechanical, but he still winds up doing good.)

So, God may not necessarily create the universe, but an all-loving God does.

I don't see why an all-loving all-powerful god needs a universe. Can't he just love his navel?

So tempted to say, "What if his navel were the universe?"

But instead, I'll look at the pretty pink corduroy jacket I'll never own from title nine.

fixed my grammar error. stupid subjunctive.

I don't see why an all-loving all-powerful god needs a universe. Can't he just love his navel?

Um, no, that would make him an all-selfish god.

I wonder/suspect with an ALAP that we are the universe in his navel.

Mooooooom, Kat's in my brain again.

Um, no, that would make him an all-selfish god.

How can an all loving god not love his navel? I dunno. Needing to create something to love strikes me as self-indulgent.

But Cass, it's so pretty and well organized in here.

Grooming Politicians for Christ: [link]

Hannah Woody, for instance, came away from the institute's seminars confident that abolishing the Department of Education is not just a Republican goal, but also a Christian imperative.