4 ms·
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) al
by Vecr 2y ago
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.
- gigatree 2y agoDo 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?
- joshuamcginnis 2y agoSimply 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.
- Vecr 2y agoAbsolutely 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.