Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

...you silly argument.

Every time you start a response with this allegation, or "nonsense," or whatever, it just tells me what I already can see is true: namely, that the argument isn't the problem. It's the one attempting to comprehend it who's having the problem. And that reminds me that perhaps I'm trying to achieve too much here, by trying to reason with somebody who's not following.

So you might think you're making a point to me, but it might not be the point you think you're making.

First, since you cannot objectively prove the existence of the Christian God

Let me see if it's even possible for you to be convinced: what would you regard as sufficient rational evidence for the existence of God?

If you've got an answer, let's see if I can meet that challenge (assuming it's a reasonable one).

If the answer is, "Nothing," then again, the problem is not with the argument, but with the fact that you've chosen not to be persuadable. For there isn't any set of conditions you can specify under which you would be willing to be convinced.

Second, and equally important, why is an "objective morality" the necessary sin qua non of morality?

That's easy. Because a "non-objective" morality is binding on nobody. So it fails to function as a moral precept at all. The very minimum we might expect of something we call "moral" would be that it would give at least one person at least one binding moral duty. If it can't even do that, then in what sense can we use the term "moral" to describe it at all?

[Alexiev]

...you silly argument.

Every time you start a response with this allegation, or "nonsense," or whatever, it just tells me what I already can see is true: namely, that the argument isn't the problem. It's the one attempting to comprehend it who's having the problem. And that reminds me that perhaps I'm trying to achieve too much here, by trying to reason with somebody who's not following.

So you might think you're making a point to me, but it might not be the point you think you're making.

First, since you cannot objectively prove the existence of the Christian God

Let me see if it's even possible for you to be convinced: what would you regard as sufficient rational evidence for the existence of God?

If you've got an answer, let's see if I can meet that challenge (assuming it's a reasonable one).

If the answer is, "Nothing," then again, the problem is not with the argument, but with the fact that you've chosen not to be persuadable. For there isn't any set of conditions you can specify under which you would be willing to be convinced.

Second, and equally important, why is an "objective morality" the necessary sin qua non of morality?

That's easy. Because a "non-objective" morality is binding on nobody. So it fails to function as a moral precept at all. The very minimum we might expect of something we call "moral" would be that it would give at least one person at least one binding moral duty. If it can't even do that, then in what sense can we use the term "moral" to describe it at all?

There's plenty of "rational" evidence for the existence of God, but no objective evidence.

When I characterize your posts as "silly", I am simply stating my opinion of them. If they are silly, it is not my comprehension that is the problem, but your futile attempts at rational argument. There are several reasons why someone fails to "comprehend" your arguments. The most obvious is that you fail to elucidate them through precise, careful writing. Another is that your thinking is so muddled that your arguments cannot be rationally and precisely expressed. When you complain that I don't comprehend, you are blaming the victim.

[Immanuel Can]

There's plenty of "rational" evidence for the existence of God, but no objective evidence.

That's pretty obviously untrue. If, for example, we look at the natural world with dispassionate eyes, there's a ton of it. In fact, it's hard to believe anything else...as witnessed by the fact that all ancient societies have, without exception, assumed the existence of some "god" or "gods." So the burden is really on the skeptic to show that all that apparent design is misleading.

Richard Dawkins, no friend to Theism, for sure, makes this case himself:

“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator. What science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator..."

Nevertheless, Dawkins stubbornly insists, we all must, at all costs, NOT take this impulse seriously, must fight off any suspicion of a creator, and must bend all mental effort toward believing in the far-less-plausible...namely, that what you are seeing is a collision of the most fortuitous and astronomically unlikely coincidences, and that everything that is so manifestly ordered in this universe simply popped into existence spontaneously. But that's very likely because Dawkins made up his mind at the ripe old age of 17.

So Dawkins admits the existence of objective evidence, but demands that you ignore it. Which you can, if you choose, of course: but it's clearly far from the truth that there's no objective evidence for God.

When I characterize your posts as "silly", I am simply stating my opinion of them.

And perhaps expressing your trouble in following the argument, unless you're trying to be merely obscurantist. Your responses often fail to recognize the main point: and its certainly not for any lack of clarity or directness on my part.

For instance, you haven't even tried to explain what you would regard, even in theory, as acceptable evidence for the existence of God; which means either that you failed to understand, or you realized you had no answer and dodged. Either way, it's a cop out.

[Alexiev]

There's plenty of "rational" evidence for the existence of God, but no objective evidence.

That's pretty obviously untrue. If, for example, we look at the natural world with dispassionate eyes, there's a ton of it. In fact, it's hard to believe anything else...as witnessed by the fact that all ancient societies have, without exception, assumed the existence of some "god" or "gods." So the burden is really on the skeptic to show that all that apparent design is misleading.

Richard Dawkins, no friend to Theism, for sure, makes this case himself:

“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator. What science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator..."

Nevertheless, Dawkins stubbornly insists, we all must, at all costs, NOT take this impulse seriously, must fight off any suspicion of a creator, and must bend all mental effort toward believing in the far-less-plausible...namely, that what you are seeing is a collision of the most fortuitous and astronomically unlikely coincidences, and that everything that is so manifestly ordered in this universe simply popped into existence spontaneously. But that's very likely because Dawkins made up his mind at the ripe old age of 17.

So Dawkins admits the existence of objective evidence, but demands that you ignore it. Which you can, if you choose, of course: but it's clearly far from the truth that there's no objective evidence for God.

When I characterize your posts as "silly", I am simply stating my opinion of them.

And perhaps expressing your trouble in following the argument, unless you're trying to be merely obscurantist. Your responses often fail to recognize the main point: and its certainly not for any lack of clarity or directness on my part.

For instance, you haven't even tried to explain what you would regard, even in theory, as acceptable evidence for the existence of God; which means either that you failed to understand, or you realized you had no answer and dodged. Either way, it's a cop out.

Ok. You've roped me in to this silly argument.

There are several definitions of "objective" 1

) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Contrasted with subjective.

This is not what we are discussing.

The relevant definitons are:

: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.
—Marvin Reznikoff
compare SUBJECTIVE sense 3a
b
: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
objective awareness
objective data
c
of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
objective arthritis

Clearly, religious observations are not a) "perceptible to all observers", "in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual
thought", "deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects". Since God is (supposedly) incorporeal, He doesn't exist in the "objective" world of (you guessed it) physical objects.

The "feeling of awe" that Dawson (he should have stuck to genetics) mentions is, by any definition, subjective rather than objective. No reasonable person suggests there is no "evidence" of supernatural forces. There's plenty of evidence, including, but not limited to: eye witness accounts of people rising from the dead, performing miracles, and professing their personal religious experiences. None of this evidence constitutes "proof".

There's lots of evidence for the existence of sasquatch, too. There are eyewitness reports, films, quasi-historical stories, etc., etc. But I don't believe sasquatches roam the forests of my home state of Oregon. I have good reasons for my lack of faith, just as I have good reasons for failing to accept the evidence for the existence of God. Eyewitness accounts are (see the definition above) subjective. Objective evidence for sasquatch would include actual animals, skeletal remains, etc. In other words: objects. Dawson is not claiming there is objective evidence of the supernatural. If there was, it wouldn't be supernatural. It would be natural.

With regard to your challenge: it shows your lack of understanding of the nature of proof and the nature of evidence. I accept lots of evidence for the existence of God (although I certainly don't think the feeling of awe Dawson references is such evidence). What I don't think is that the evidence rises to the level of proof, or even of "persuasive evidence". To answer your question: I hope (although I'm not sure) that if God appeared to me in a burning bush and said, "I am that I am" his appearance would be sufficiently impressive as to persuade me (although it would not be "objective"). Is there "evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead? Of course there is. There are all those eyewitness accounts related in the New Testament. Is there "evidence" that Orpheus descended to Hades and returned alive? Of course there is. There are all those Greek stories. There's probably even evidence of Q anon. That doesn't mean I have to accept all evidence as indicative of the truth.

[FlashDangerpants]

You can't have any other conversation with Immanuel Can other than this same endless chore of discussing whether God exists. Now he is even hijacking his own threads to make them about that.

[FlashDangerpants]

I can sense your deep concern about the evolving dynamics of gender discourse and its potential impact on both men and women. It's evident that you're reflecting on the broader consequences of the prevailing narratives.

The intricate relationship between masculinity and femininity, and the societal shifts in perception, indeed raises complex questions. Your exploration of the potential consequences, especially for men and the unaddressed energy associated with traditional masculinity, is thought-provoking.

Understanding and navigating these shifts require open dialogue and a shared commitment to fostering mutual respect. Your concern for the well-being of both genders and the societal implications reflects a genuine desire for a balanced and harmonious coexistence. Initiating conversations that bridge these perspectives might be a step toward a more inclusive and understanding future.

Did you use ChatGPT to write that for you?

[Immanuel Can]

Ok. You've roped me in to this silly argument.

If it's "silly" to you, then that's as clear a confession as one might need that you're not going to be very useful in any ensuing argument. You don't even profess to understand it, apparently.

Clearly, religious observations are not a) "perceptible to all observers", "in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual
thought", "deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects".

On the contrary...design in nature is an an observation based on the most compelling argument from empirical evidence available to all. So there's nothing "religious" about it, save the implications of the conclusion. The premises are perceptible to all observers, the data is in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought, and derive from sense perception with actual objects. And all the argument requires you to do is to be able to recognize the presence of design, which you do every single time you recognize any ordinary object as manufactured or constructed by intelligence rather than merely accidental.

The "feeling of awe" that Dawson...

Dawkins. You don't know who Richard Dawkins is?

Well, he's really not worth knowing, it's true...but I am surprised. He's quite the darling of the knee-jerk skeptic set.

To answer your question: I hope (although I'm not sure) that if God appeared to me in a burning bush and said, "I am that I am" his appearance would be sufficiently impressive as to persuade me (although it would not be "objective").

It would have to be objective. For it would be exactly conforming to the definition upon which you've insisted. But the reason you're not going to get it is obvious: Moses had faith. You're asking the opposite: you're asking why the Supreme Being wouldn't submit to the demands of cynicism...and the question really answers itself.

Is there "evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead? Of course there is.

Well, that much you've realized. But of course, it's much better evidence than any of the "parallels" you suggested, which have none.

[Alexiev]

Ok. You've roped me in to this silly argument.

If it's "silly" to you, then that's as clear a confession as one might need that you're not going to be very useful in any ensuing argument. You don't even profess to understand it, apparently.

Clearly, religious observations are not a) "perceptible to all observers", "in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual
thought", "deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects".

On the contrary...design in nature is an an observation based on the most compelling argument from empirical evidence available to all. So there's nothing "religious" about it, save the implications of the conclusion. The premises are perceptible to all observers, the data is in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought, and derive from sense perception with actual objects. And all the argument requires you to do is to be able to recognize the presence of design, which you do every single time you recognize any ordinary object as manufactured or constructed by intelligence rather than merely accidental.

The "feeling of awe" that Dawson...

Dawkins. You don't know who Richard Dawkins is?

Well, he's really not worth knowing, it's true...but I am surprised. He's quite the darling of the knee-jerk skeptic set.

To answer your question: I hope (although I'm not sure) that if God appeared to me in a burning bush and said, "I am that I am" his appearance would be sufficiently impressive as to persuade me (although it would not be "objective").

It would have to be objective. For it would be exactly conforming to the definition upon which you've insisted. But the reason you're not going to get it is obvious: Moses had faith. You're asking the opposite: you're asking why the Supreme Being wouldn't submit to the demands of cynicism...and the question really answers itself.

Is there "evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead? Of course there is.

Well, that much you've realized. But of course, it's much better evidence than any of the "parallels" you suggested, which have none.

Your logic is fallacious. Since you love prating about logical fallacies, I'll introduce you to one about which you are seemingly unaware. It's called "assuming the antecedent". or "affirming the consequent". If one posits "if God created the universe, the universe was designed". it is a logical error to "affirm the consequent" and conclude that "if the universe is designed, God must have created the universe." This is obvious. There are any number of other reasons the universe might be ordered in a seeming design, some of which have nothing to do with God or any supernatural forces. In addition, any one of the hundreds of Gods (or a natural designer not yet discovered) might have been the designer.

Therefore, your argument from design is fallacious.

In addition, your notion that there is "NO" evidence for Orpheus or sasquatch is nonsensical. There's evidence, although it may be insufficient to persuade you or me. Only a fool would argue that oral histories (myths) don't constitute "evidence". And only a fool would argue that they inevitably constitute persuasive evidence. You appear to be unaware of what constitutes "evidence". A witness at a trial can "give evidence" that the jury finds unpersuasive. That does not mean that the witness has not "given evidence".

Actually, I've read Dawkins' "the God Delusion" (it's lousy), and "The Selfish Gene", which is a good popular explanation of modern genetic theory (at least it was modern 40 years ago).

One more thing: Have you ever read the Bible? There is no "evidence" that Moses had faith before he saw the burning bush. When he saw the bush, and it burned but was not consumed by the flame, he was curious about how this could be. So he went to examine the bush. That's when God said, "Here I am." Then He said, "I am the God of your fathers." Prior to that, there is no evidence that Moses had any more faith than I. In fact, Moses tried to get out of the task God assigned him. "Who am I that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?...They shall say to me, 'What is His (God's) name."

"I am that I am," answered God (although I've read that a better translation would be "I am what I will be."). Moses was like Doubting Thomas. He didn't have faith until he saw with his own eyes.

[Immanuel Can]

If one posits "if God created the universe, the universe was designed". it is a logical error to "affirm the consequent" and conclude that "if the universe is designed, God must have created the universe."

You don't have to. Just assume something capable of design created the universe (which you cannot rationally avoid doing, if the premises you propose are taken already). Then you need a further step of the argument, known, as "inference to the best explanation," and you arrive at the right conclusion.

...your notion that there is "NO" evidence for Orpheus or sasquatch is nonsensical. There's evidence, although it may be insufficient to persuade you or me.

Your standards of evidence are rather bizarre: far too low here, but in regards to God, your evidentiary demands aren't merely immeasurably higher, but so adamant that no evidence at all counts.

So, if I take you seriously, then you end up being absurdly credulous of Orpheus and sasquatch, and totally closed-minded about God.

Interesting paradox.

Actually, I've read Dawkins' "the God Delusion" (it's lousy), and "The Selfish Gene", which is a good popular explanation of modern genetic theory (at least it was modern 40 years ago).

I can't understand why three times you called him "Dawson," then. It seems a terribly obvious mistake.

One more thing: Have you ever read the Bible?

There is no "evidence" that Moses had faith before he saw the burning bush.

That wasn't the argument you proposed. You said that you would accept your own "burning bush." You said not a thing about wanting evidence for Moses's.

But the point stands, I think: since you have no evidence that you will accept for the existence of God, you can't be surprised if you don't know anything about the existence of God. But the fault is with the terms you've imposed, not with the evidence. There's no curing a totally-faith-premised refusal to believe. Nobody can stop you, nobody can change your mind, and no kind of evidence can sway you.

[Alexiev]

If one posits "if God created the universe, the universe was designed". it is a logical error to "affirm the consequent" and conclude that "if the universe is designed, God must have created the universe."

You don't have to. Just assume something capable of design created the universe (which you cannot rationally avoid doing, if the premises you propose are taken already). Then you need a further step of the argument, known, as "inference to the best explanation," and you arrive at the right conclusion.

...your notion that there is "NO" evidence for Orpheus or sasquatch is nonsensical. There's evidence, although it may be insufficient to persuade you or me.

Your standards of evidence are rather bizarre: far too low here, but in regards to God, your evidentiary demands aren't merely immeasurably higher, but so adamant that no evidence at all counts.

So, if I take you seriously, then you end up being absurdly credulous of Orpheus and sasquatch, and totally closed-minded about God.

Interesting paradox.

Actually, I've read Dawkins' "the God Delusion" (it's lousy), and "The Selfish Gene", which is a good popular explanation of modern genetic theory (at least it was modern 40 years ago).

I can't understand why three times you called him "Dawson," then. It seems a terribly obvious mistake.

One more thing: Have you ever read the Bible?

There is no "evidence" that Moses had faith before he saw the burning bush.

That wasn't the argument you proposed. You said that you would accept your own "burning bush." You said not a thing about wanting evidence for Moses's.

But the point stands, I think: since you have no evidence that you will accept for the existence of God, you can't be surprised if you don't know anything about the existence of God. But the fault is with the terms you've imposed, not with the evidence. There's no curing a totally-faith-premised refusal to believe. Nobody can stop you, nobody can change your mind, and no kind of evidence can sway you.

Once again, you are either proposing a tautology, or affirming the consequent. Obviously if being "designed" means "being designed by some sentient being", then you are simply stating the obvious. If the universe was designed by a sentient being, then it was designed by a sentient being. NO big surprise.

ON the other hand, if you suggest something akin to "well-ordered and beautiful things must be designed by a sentient being", then you are affirming the consequent. Obviously, there are many potential reasons for a well-ordered universe, one of which is that we humans have brains and languages that like to put things in order.

My demands on "evidence" are the same as everyone else's. IN courts of law, witnesses are allowed to "give evidence". That would allow eyewitnesses who claim to have seen sasquatch to swear to tell the truth and make that claim. Same with those who have seen God. WE can listen to the evidence, examine other evidence, and decide what is credible. Why is that unreasonable? You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "proof".

Finally, I have no idea if God "exists" (or even what the existence of an incorporeal and transcendental being means). I'm perfectly open to the idea, but I don't really think about it often (unless arguing with you). Same with sasquatch. I have a friend who's a sasquatch hunter. He's been on TV for his expertise; he has supposedly seen a "Quatch" (peeking out from behind a tree 70 yards away at night). He's a pretty smart guy, and since he knows far more about sasquatch than I do, he has reasonable rebuttals for all of my reasons for disbelief. One difference between him and you: if sasquatch does exist, it exists in the real, physical world. If God exists, He is incorporeal and does not "exist" in the manner in which the word "existence" is normally used. The kind of evidence supporting the existence of sasquatch is evidence with which we modern people are familiar: physical evidence, eyewitness evidence, etc. The kind of evidence for the existence of God is different. There is no physical evidence.

I'll grant that Zeus or Athena or Odin lived (if they lived) in the physical world. So their existence could be supported in normal, scientific ways, This is not true for a transcendent, incorporeal God. "By His works ye shall know him," you say. But if we "know" God because of his works, we are assuming the antecedent. This is a logical error.

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, you are either proposing a tautology, or affirming the consequent.

Neither. It's two arguments, as you will note, one after the other, and neither "affirming the consequent." It's a probabilistic argument, called "argument to the best explanation."

Obviously if being "designed" means "being designed by some sentient being", then you are simply stating the obvious.

It should indeed be obvious...so obvious it's beyond reasonable doubt. Strangely, it isn't. People continue to pretend that randomness can produce order -- and not merely one or two times, but literally all the time, billions and billions of times, though everything in our experience belies it.

I agree that it's an argument that shouldn't have to be made. But because it continues to be doubted, it still has to be.

Obviously, there are many potential reasons for a well-ordered universe, one of which is that we humans have brains and languages that like to put things in order.

Did you just notice that you assumed your conclusion? You used the existence of order to serve as an "explanation" for the existence of order.
"Brains" and "languages" are highly complex entities, pre-requiring intelligence. You've started an explanation from the assumption that they already exist, then depended on the existence of these highly complex, desisgned entities to explain why complex, designed entities exist.

My demands on "evidence" are the same as everyone else's.

Apparently not. Most people regard Orpheus and sasquatch as relatively low in relation to quality of evidence, and God as comparatively high in probability, since most of us think it's at least possible He exists, but have no similar conviction regarding Orpheus or sasquatch. But your argument is the reverse, it seems...

[promethean75]

"If God exists, He is incorporeal and does not "exist" in the manner in which the word "existence" is normally used"

Totally true. That problem right there is exemplified best by the conflict between negative theology with positive theology. Negative theology was just the effect of the logical contradictions produced when trying to conveive of something immaterial manifesting in a material form. How to describe 'god' with a predicated language that's ordinarily used to describe real objects and processes in the world that exist. Like chairs and making orange juice.

Solution: u can only say about 'god' what 'god' isn't. So he is but he isn't a being. He's eternal but he's now. He's there, everywhere, and nowhere in time and space, all at once. He is loving and benevolent but cruel and destructive.

The attempt to resolve these conceptual problems was wut negative theology was, i think. Mysticism doubling down to salvage what some linguistic problems did to the ontology of 'god'; what constitutes 'evidence' for 'god'? Is any of it empirical? Can any of it even be empirical? Does it even need to be empirical? If this thing transcends nature and existence (whatever that might mean), empirical evidence would not only be irrelevant, but it wouldn't be representative of 'god's' essence, anyway.

See wud i mean? Doubling down to save 'god' from the tyranny of language.

[promethean75]

Yeah they're called 'apophatic' and 'cataphatic' theologies.

[Alexiev]

Once again, you are either proposing a tautology, or affirming the consequent.

Neither. It's two arguments, as you will note, one after the other, and neither "affirming the consequent." It's a probabilistic argument, called "argument to the best explanation."

Obviously if being "designed" means "being designed by some sentient being", then you are simply stating the obvious.

It should indeed be obvious...so obvious it's beyond reasonable doubt. Strangely, it isn't. People continue to pretend that randomness can produce order -- and not merely one or two times, but literally all the time, billions and billions of times, though everything in our experience belies it.

I agree that it's an argument that shouldn't have to be made. But because it continues to be doubted, it still has to be.

Obviously, there are many potential reasons for a well-ordered universe, one of which is that we humans have brains and languages that like to put things in order.

Did you just notice that you assumed your conclusion? You used the existence of order to serve as an "explanation" for the existence of order.
"Brains" and "languages" are highly complex entities, pre-requiring intelligence. You've started an explanation from the assumption that they already exist, then depended on the existence of these highly complex, desisgned entities to explain why complex, designed entities exist.

My demands on "evidence" are the same as everyone else's.

Apparently not. Most people regard Orpheus and sasquatch as relatively low in relation to quality of evidence, and God as comparatively high in probability, since most of us think it's at least possible He exists, but have no similar conviction regarding Orpheus or sasquatch. But your argument is the reverse, it seems...

Your logic is faulty, once again. You are using a posteriori reasoning. "Because it is incredibly unlikely that the world could be ordered in the manner in which it is ordered, it must have been designed," you seem to say.

But anything that happens was once incredibly improbable. What are the odds of flipping a coin, and having it turn up heads 100 times in a row? 1/2 to the 100th power. But the odds against any particular sequence of heads and tails was also 1/2 to the 100th power. So whatever sequence turns up was once incredibly unlikely. Can we infer when one sequence shows up that it must have been ordered by some form of cheating or design? Of course not. SOME sequence will occur.

WE look at the world around us and think, "What are the chances that it could have become arranged in this fashion without design?" Of course, at one point in the past, the chances were almost infinitesimal. But so were the odds of an exact sequence of 100 coin flips. Nonetheless, SOME arrangement will occur. Just as we might look at the exact sequence of 100 coin flips and say, "That couldn't be random -- the chances are 2 to the 100th," we might say the same about the arrangement of the universe. But we would be wrong and illogical. The chances of the universe being arranged in the way it is arranged are 100%, because it has happened. It is no more logical to say this particular arrangement was once incredibly unlikely, so there must be a "designer", than it is to say "this sequence of coin flips was once incredibly unlikely, so there must be cheating."

The rest of you post is mere falderal. "Brains are highly complex..." huh? What does that have to do with anything? Of course the evidence for Orpheus is scant. That doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Same with Sasquatch. That doesn't mean it isn't "possible" that they existed. Why would it?

The "best explanation" for the exact sequence of 100 coin flips is not that there is cheating or design; it is that the coin flips are random, but some exact sequence that was once incredibly unlikely is certain to occur.

[Alexiev]

The attempt to resolve these conceptual problems was wut negative theology was, i think. Mysticism doubling down to salvage what some linguistic problems did to the ontology of 'god'; what constitutes 'evidence' for 'god'? Is any of it empirical? Can any of it even be empirical? Does it even need to be empirical? If this thing transcends nature and existence (whatever that might mean), empirical evidence would not only be irrelevant, but it wouldn't be representative of 'god's' essence, anyway.

See wud i mean? Doubling down to save 'god' from the tyranny of language.

Exactly. That's why I said I hope I might believe in God if He appeared to me in a burning bush. The evidence would not be empirical (nobody else could see it), but the transcendent experience might (or might not) be enough to persuade me. I'm guessing the faith of all those great mystics and saints (we won't list Immanuel among them) was largely due to these kinds of experiences. When they happen to other people, although that still constitutes "evidence", it is neither empirical nor persuasive evidence.