Im currently reading The End of Christainity and was hoping Richard Carriers chapter on Neither Life nor the Universe seem Intelligently Designed would be better, its a great chapter mind you, and certainly worth it the price of the book in and of itself. But, more and more I find myself thinking in a Bayesian sense. Its worthwhile to ask yourself whether you can go from hypothesis A to conclusion c cleanly. Does ~A get there cleanly? And what do we observe. Even for seemingly basic premises and thought that havent so much as occurred to me ever such thoughts illuminate arguments Ive never heard or thought about. Why cant people in heaven or hell communicate with Earth? I mean you cant really get from the premise "there is an afterlife" to the conclusion therefore that afterlife will be completely barred from communicating with the living. But, necessarily thats a requirement if there is no afterlife. While one could conclude that there are a myriad of afterlives that could ...