I will say it again:
I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.
According to you, having a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis, therefore it is true that the giant space goat exists.
The logic of your own argument leads to the conclusion that the space goat is real and is the creator of God.
Either the logic is valid when applied to both the space goat and to God, or else the logic is not valid when applied to either conclusion. The logic of an argument does not become valid or invalid based on what conclusion we are trying to support with the argument. Either the logic of the argument is valid or it isn't.
The purpose of an argument is to either support (good logic) or fail to support (bad logic) a conclusion.
You can't say that the logic is valid when applied to conclusion A but not conclusion B because conclusion A is true and B is not, because the entire point of having a conversation in which we use arguments to support conclusions is to determine which if any conclusions are valid.
You're using circular logic to defend bad logic.
- X is true because it is supported by argument B.
- Argument B uses valid logic because X is true.
- Y is not true even though it is supported by argument B.
- Argument B uses invalid logic because Y is false.
That's just not how logic works. That's not how truth works.
This link explains why circular logic fails to support conclusions, and uses famous lines from a famous movie to explain why circular logic does not support conclusions:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning
Hopefully the movie quotes will make the explanation easier to understand.