yellowtamarin wrote:
Can you explain what you find confusing about this summary? I don't see a problem with it.
It's not intended as a summary, it's intended as an argument.
The most important thing about an argument is that it should be valid. This means that the conclusion should follow from the premises. Even on the most charitable interpretation, it is clear that the conclusion ("God almost certainly does not exist") has nothing to do with the premises. The premises are about humans, and the conclusion is about God.
And that's ignoring the fact that you're really not supposed to mix statements of probability ("almost certainly") into a logical argument. Probability is about human knowledge of the world, not about how the world actually
is. You need a different system (Bayesian reasoning) to deal with probability.