I'm going to try and avoid repeating material, here.
PDH, one thing I have come to understand greatly over time is that while you have a steady handle on syllable count, you have a very poor grasp of science. I spent a good deal of my graduate research dealing with BAYES' theorem. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this theory and its applications. It has nothing to do with logic, it is a probability theorem. It certainly says nothing to how people belief systems should mold themselves to some perverse worldview nor does it govern science as a system of logic. Get your head out of your pop-science ass and do some studying before you throw around terms you don't understand.
I would base my decisions on future information but it isn't available at this time.
I've noticed that the more you come to realise the frailties of your position, the more you come to rely on intellectual condescension and bluster. Interesting.
The claim was that Bayes' Theorem (so sorry about misplacing my apostrophe before
) describes how probabilities are altered in light of new information. This is significant because you think it's somehow a problem that consequentialists are rational.
You respond to me as if I was making the claim that we can derive the whole of Bayesian Epistemology from Bayes' Theorem alone. This isn't true, you need a couple of other assumptions, too, such as the claim that epistemic states can be represented as probability distributions. That's why most of the people who know how to use the Theorem are not properly speaking Bayesians and why merely knowing and having used the theorem does not make you an expert on Bayesian Epistemology.
By all means, though, tell me how a proper understanding of science compels us to ignore evidence.
Once again folks, note the sheer volume of words to say nothing to the fact that the consequentialist does nothing but kick the moral judgement one step down the road to make a arbitrary decision about an act's morality. The theory makes an appeal to an inherent morality and is thus not self-consistent.
Once again, folks, note how Spektre just replaces his opponents arguments with more extreme and simplified versions of them because he has no response. I have explicitly described the difference between these two things and its relevance, if you can't respond to this you would be better off writing nothing at all then misrepresenting it.
...And that's basically it. Everything else you wrote is adequately responded to by these two comments. You either don't address a point at all, fail to understand that we must always base our decisions on incomplete information or fail to distinguish between intrinsic and terminal, even though I've explained the difference multiple times. Throw in some intellectual condescension, which is what you resort to when things aren't going your way and that's about the long and short of it.