Hacker News Reader

If you start with the conclusion (therefore God exists), you'll always be able to find a logical chain that seems to prove it true.

View on HN

Why don't you provide your own logic chain for why God doesn't exist and I'll read and respond to your arguments.

Obviously that can't be done absolutely, but

1) theoretically there are a huge number of explanations that fit the evidence, possibly an infinite number

2) almost none of them will contain your God

Done.

You can argue about what system should should be used to assign credibility to those explanations, but I'm not sure if you're read up on various Bayesian and non-Bayesian prior systems.

Simply pointing out that there are alternative possibility is not an argument against a creator. It's possible the creator is a pink unicorn, but it's not likely.

Absolutely it's an argument against God that almost none of those explanations contain God.

If you want to enter more evidence or argue priors you can, but in the argument's current state it's highly effective.

Do you mean that for like a specific person’s made up god, or would you replace “your God” with “a God, an entity, or a mind of some kind”. Because in that case I assume those two points wouldn’t apply, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com