Pseudoskepticism and logic

Exactly. Your reasons for leaning towards the possible existence of the divine are:1. Personal Interest (Subjective)
2. Possible Personal Benefit (Subjective)
3. That "you think" there's enough evidence (even though it's evidenceless). (Subjective)Therefore, all your reasons for leaning towards the possible existence of the divine are all subjective. Therefore, this "leaning" is not based upon a rational approach. Exactly. These ideas subjectively "are of no interest" to you.You cannot claim that your subjective method for leaning or not leaning towards the existence of equally evidenceless ideas is somehow rational.If it makes you feel better, or you gain other benefits... those are excellent subjective reasons for you to continue with your beliefs. But, it is important to understand that such reasons are not rational. When someone doesn't understand this difference, then it becomes very easy for them to use a similar subjective system to make decisions for very important things.It certainly works for most unimportant decisions. And no one can call it intrinsically wrong. But it's also irrational because it is subjective and inconsistent.I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other in your beliefs. I really couldn't care less what you believe in. All I'm trying to do is get you to see your methods for what they are. Then you will be able to understand if you want to keep them or change them for yourself.I have no issue with someone who believes in the divine, and understands that such a belief is subjective (and therefore not rational).I have an issue with someone who believes in the divine (or any other evidenceless idea), and also thinks that belief is somehow rational. And therefore thinks the same method can be used for other important decisions. This is what drives ignorance and creates a field day for con artists. It's a very damaging cognitive issue to have unchecked.The only reason I started all this was because you mentioned something along the lines of "because there's no evidence, then there's a 50/50 chance it could be real." Now, I'm not sure if you actually believed that or if you just said it as the conversation was going along. All I'm trying to point out is that such beliefs, in relation to things based on no evidence, are not rational.

Hi Stile,Sorry but still misunderstanding my position.

quote:

---

Therefore, all your reasons for leaning towards the possible existence of the divine are all subjective. Therefore, this "leaning" is not based upon a rational approach.

---

There is no empirical evidence for or against the divine. The rational position is agnosticism.We had a whole thread on subjective evidence, and we've been talking here about how people make stuff up but they also have genuine experiences which they relate truthfully. If I add in the fact that spirituality seems to be innate in humans and other bits and pieces that you'd call subjective, I might go 60/40 in favour. This is in keeping with the OP and with the definition of agnosticism. Personal interest and possible benefit don't factor into my actual acceptance of the evidence (or lack thereof) or even my belief.You and some others here seem to really, really want to show that my true thoughts belie any agnostic front that I'm putting on here. You are incorrect and I would appreciate it if you could stick to discussing the subject of the thread rather than getting distracted with people's personal beliefs.

Hi Modulous,

quote:

---

You don't think that the IPU is equally likely to have caused the universe (or have existed 'before' it) than any other similarly specific proposed unverifiable entity? I'm confused. What did you mean by x and y when you said 'if...anything existed at all, then it's impossible to say that "x" is more likely than "y"'

---

Let's go back to a few things I was saying before. I forget who I've said them to, there have been so many people. Firstly, RAZD and I have been equating theism with a possible kernel of truth in all religion and spirituality. We may not have evidence that Zeus and Vishnu are directly interacting with the world, or that Yaweh created it 6,000 years ago, but we can look at the fact that humans have expressed spirituality for thousands of years. If you haven't read RAZD's Message 377, along with the link to the story about the brain being hard-wired for religion, then I'd recommend doing so.This is why I originally set up a dichotomy where the universe was created by the divine, or it wasn't. I'd accept that it's possible for the two to be part of each other. I think arguing about whether it was Zeus, Vishnu, Yaweh or the IPU is a distraction. I would also use the points above to explain why I personally was slightly in favour of the existence of the divine, though that is my personal opinion and I'd still say officially that without empirical evidence, the odds are 50/50.So I'm going to cut you to the quick here. "x" is no more likely than "y" because the IPU is subsumed within "the divine," though the fact that it's a deliberately constructed entity used for the purpose of satire, and in which no one seriously believes, does in fact make it less deserving of that category.I'm going to say the same thing I just said to Stile: I think we're getting distracted with dissecting my own beliefs. I don't see any current discussions of why it's necessary to prove the claim that the divine does not exist.

I'd like to remind everyone here of Minnemooseus' last post:

quote:

---

In my previous first of three messages in this topic, I had argued that "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".
Now, I'm presuming that all of the science side will accept that considerations of the supernatural are, by definition, outside of the realm of study via methodological naturalism. In generally has been said that "science is agnostic".

​

I now argue that there is, by definition, a total absence of methodological naturalisticly derived evidence for anything filed under "the supernatural". This goes beyond "nothing yet has been found". Rather it is, "there is nothing (by definition) to be found".

​

Thus, from the scientific perspective, the supernatural does not exist - The scientific method is atheistic.

​

Which does not say that a person who does science (aka "a scientist") must be an atheist outside of when s/he is doing science.

​

Moose

---

This expresses some unease that I've felt myself during this thread. When I read the OP I expected to have a discussion of paranormal research, which is the field in which the term "pseudoskeptic" is typically used. I have found it difficult at times to apply this to atheism because we're discussing a topic for which there is little to no empirical evidence. Because of this, it seems nonsensical to apply scientific epistemological tools to try to make sense of it or establish its reality. I hope that in the future this will become more of a possibility (my bet is on quantum physics helping us get there) but for now I think I would agree with what Mooseus says above. Otherwise I think we're trying to measure the air with a ruler here.

I understand this. We agree that there is a commonality of religion and spirituality. You propose that this commonality is because of some kernal of truth. I propose that there is no evidence for this, you might as well say that the commonality of beliefs is caused by strange undetectable moon rays, or secret CIA poison. They are all equally evidenced and there is therefore no reason to prefer one to another.Now - had this thread been about evidence for god like the last one was, the 'brain is hardwired for religion' would be a perfect subtopic. It is exactly what I was saying in the first place. I would point out that you are being a little bit like the puddle who finds itself awe struck by how perfectly the hole it is in seems to have been shaped 'as if to fit it'.Religion is as it is because of its appeal to human brains, it has evolved to whatever mental conditions it finds itself in. That doesn't mean necessarily that the brain has been put together so that we would believe, but that we believe because of how the brain is put together.That might an interesting discussion as we try and describe which way around the cart and horse should go in that equation. And my point is that there are still more unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities that are not 'divine'.It isn't that Yahweh is a distraction, he is just a specific example. In this case he is as likely to be the cause as the IPU, if we assume they are equally specific (which I don't think they are).You can continuously generalise until all you are saying is nothing.First let us suppose we accept that the universe was created - what was the culprit?Chance of it being YHWH is very low because YHWH is a very specific entity being described (brushing aside difficulties in bringing conflicting ideas in the bible to one side).
There is a higher chance that it is an invisible pink unicorn (which has less stated properties as YHWH)
There is a higher chance that it is at least one invisible pink unicorn (since that includes one and many IPUs which contains more members than pure monounicornism)
Higher still that it is at least one invisible unicorn (all colours of invisible unicorn permitted),

Higher still that it is at least one invisible equine being
Higher that it is at least one intangible equine being
Higher that it is at least one unverifiable equine being
Higher that it is at least one unverifiable mammal-like being
""                          "" unverifiable divine being.
""                          ""      ""      entity.
""                          "" entity.

But what about the universe being created by scientists from our own future? Or scientists in another universe? Or that the universe is actually a Matrix and we are all aliens? Or...There are thousands more options than 'divine being' so on what grounds does divine being get to take a whole 50% of the probability? Just because nobody believes it, does not mean it is not true though. In fact, not believing in it has no affect on its truth status at all. Which is why the things we know are true today, but which were not believed centuries ago were true then too. Also why things that were believed true, are believed false today.Just because you know the motivations of one, or even many people, in discussing the IPU does not alter the IPU's truth standing. At all. How could it? Your beliefs are irrelevant and I am not dissecting them.I am explaining to you why I hold the position that it is unlikely that god exists. If that infringes upon your beliefs I cannot help that. I was hoping to elicit your agreement about certain propositions.If there are two equally specific entities with identical amounts of evidence in support of them and you pick one of them - what are the chances you picked the one that is real assuming that one of them is?That's what I'm asking - your beliefs about one entity or another are not relevant.If you want to say that by god you means some generic divinity thing, then I will contrast it to some kind of vague scientific conspiracy from another realm thing. If we assume that one of them is real, and you pick one - what are your odds of getting it right?

No, compositional error. You can only assume they are all the same based on a generic premise.The undistributed middle is indeed happening in this example, because if I believe in God, that an IPU shares invisibility, is only one thing it shares, compositionally, therefore you can't conclude logically that they are "identical".It would be like saying that apple is fruit, orange is fruit, therefore an apple is an orange, or the same as it or identical.The only property the IPU shares with God, is that it is immaterial. Then the comparison proceeds based on the full characterictics.Making up characteristics for the IPU is posteriori, and will not prove that God's characteristcis are made-up or similar.All you have is vacuous shallow argumentation, that an immature "belief-concept" is somehow supposed to be the equivalent of faith.This only tells us things about those with a lack of faith, because logically, nothing has been stated about any specific God. LoL. Glad I got the effect I was hoping for, from someone as predictable as you.All I done was evaluate what he had said, and responded in support of the sound logic he used.If you can't take that, nobody is forcing you to read my posts. When are you going to learn that I do know what i'm talking about.You come up with a dumb IPU which is shallow, known to be made-up, and think that this means God was made up, because you assigned an immaterial attribute to something.here's an example;Hitler was a nasty pasty, but my imaginery friend is a nasty pasty, therefore Hitler didn't exist.(The point is to show how YOUR reasoning leads to a false argument, not to actually argue that line of reasoning.)So if the IPU, a posteriori concept, shares invisibility with the historical God of the bible, what can we can conclude, that they are "identical".Your own words proved your use of the undistributed middle. The "middle" term you asked for is "immaterial".So you have an immaterial made-up concept.My inference is; so what. How on earth can that can compare to the Lord, having read any of the psalms at all?I'm afraid you do not prove anything by saying that invisible made-up things can't be proven to not exist, when any rational person concludes they don't exist based on a shallow and vacuous composition. This does not mean that God is 1. Made-up, 2. shallow, 3.silly.It does tell us that atheists believe God is made-up, shallow or silly.Again, logically, I still have the right to say; so what, you have told me nothing about anything except your silly IPU, and you have told me nothing about my faith, or my God.Goodbye.ps. To clarify, I believe the argument is;IPU is immaterial and ??silly/madeup unprovable negative??
God is immaterial therefore silly/madeup etc...and is identical to the IPU.At best you have a line of reasoning based on reductio ad absurdum, but it's not solid enough because it's only one property. Why is this relevant logically? Because there are immaterial things that exist, which are not silly, etc..Logical positivism states that nothing exists until there is a positive, but does that mean everything we don't know wabout is silly?If God does exist, that some gods are clearly silly or obsolete myths, doesn't say anything about God.You seek to say that God does not exist even if you can't prove he doesn't. But the reasoning is tenuous because the IPU is 100% KNOWN to be made up, and it's only other "composition" is it's immaterial nature.But the biblical God alone shows a vast, complex and detailed composition.All you can now do is say that the IPU has all of those characteristics aswell, BUT it's all vacuous BECAUSE we still "KNOW" why the IPU exists. For refuting the possibility of God.And so, this does not satisfy me, because rationally, things can still exist even if they are not material.My personal beliefs have led to exterior effects, through prayer, aswell as internal effects, even though I have no power to affect the exterior. Therefore the external can't be ruled out as internal.SYLLOGISM;If belief in God is meaningful then amazing things will follow, (external).Amazing things have happened. (external)Therefore this confirms my belief in God.Obviously it's the ponen, not the tollens, so don't accuse me of saying that these amazing things prove God.All I am saying is that nobody's lives are affected by an IPU.There are many, many differences between an IPU and God, therefore you can't fallaciously conclude that they are identical. They are only identical to you.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

What can you tell us about you faith, or your god, that is based upon empirical evidence? Can you logically make a case for the existence of your god?Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, subtitle

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I can't make such a case, because my experiences were not recorded. I only have my personal testimony as evidence.It is reasonable to state that if God did not exist, then I should not expect much to happen, in regards to my faith-experiences.This is not the case, therefore it follows that my God does exist. (Tollens)The thing is, even this, though sound is not technically "proof", because of alternate explanations.For example, when I felt the presence of God, that might have been the Holy Spirit, as it should "follow"....but others, such as you, will say that it was explainable as a religious experience, based on some kind of mind-induced experience, etc..Even though I know it was not possible for me to fake this, as I wasn't "trying", there are still other explanations.But the point is, I don't think thay if I had praised the IPU, that I would have had this experience.it is a shallow concept, posteriori, to any actual biblical history, or scriptures with excellent manuscript authority.So it's not that I am not scientific or fair - afterall, I conclude that I technically can't prove anything to you, but the IPU, because of logical reasons, is 100% "immaterial false concept". This we know. We don't know this of God.Certainly everything i have experienced is far too meaningful and specific and intricate, for there to be a meaningful comparison. I hope you can see this.

So you are a pseudoskeptic, then? Unless you have evidence that the IPU is 100% immaterial false concept, then that is what I believe RAZD would be calling you.

You have the privelidge of my very last post. You're re-defining it.I don't need evidence for something that doesn't exist. God, looking at human history alone, it can't be said based on that, whether he exists.You can propose an IPU exists. I can't technically disprove it, but this doesn't mean that "God" is exactly the same, or that God was a proposition.Let me explain.If there are multi-verses, then this lends to a more plausible explanation of this universe. So do I equate God with multi-verses or IPUs? I could say that God is more complex therefore he is more to be equated with multiverses.Can you see that that SHOWS the epithets of the IPU.NO ATHEIST would compare God to something which is unknowable because it can't be detected, yet plausible. But essentially, I must "assume" the epithet that God is a silly proposition. Atheists ONLY propose silly things, as comparisons for an "immaterial" property.You would see possible multi-verses as rational, but I see God as rational. You see God as irrational.We can posit anything. This won't tell us much about what "really" exists. This is why it's an argumentum ad ignorantium to say that Jack did not murder because there was no evidence he did.Likewise - I can't conclude God doesn't exist because i simply don't know. So what can we do? We have to assess each "god" individually, and see if they are plausable on a personal level.I am not pseudoskeptical if I don't "know" most propositions. How can I be pseudoskeptical about something I don't know about?But people pick a specific God, such as the Christian God, and put all of their energy into disproving him. I do not put my energy into disproving the green giant.We know that lots of people take God seriously, and that belief affects their lives.one man I know was on the streets for I think about 22 years, he got off drugs and alcohol because of belief in Jesus Christ. He now runs rehabilitation centres around the country. I don't disbelieve his testimonies, which are fecking incredible beyond belief (almost ), but I know his encounter with God was real because I also had it.So in reality, the IPU doesn't tell me much about my beliefs.Perhaps some people do take belief in fairies seriously. But will it get them off drugs? Will they encounter God, in a way BEYOND any doubt?Bye for now mod.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Linda, no one can prove that there's no such thing as pigs that can fly. According to you and RAZD, it would be pseudo-skeptical to be a 6 or 7 on the Dawkins scale about flying pigs.You're never going to hear the end of all the things that you have to be "50/50 agnostic on. Once you start with the nonsensical absurdity of considering evidenceless propositions as 50/50, the world actually becomes mad. Here's one:LindaLou is an evil black witch.I'd like to be a 6 or 7 on that, and reason tells me to be a six ("I cannot know for sure, but I think it very unlikely"), but your friend RAZD will accuse me of pseudo-skepticism.Fortunately, I don't listen to superstitious fools. You're a romantic, Linda, and the fact that we're a superstitious species is obvious. Yes, there's cultural convergence in religions as in many other things, which merely emphasises that we are all very much one species.Ritual cannibalism, head hunting, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, mutilations such as female circumcision, and evil spirits as causes of both physical and mental illness are all things that anthropologists have found to have been widespread and to have emerged separately in a number of different areas.Oh, for the good old days of the "divine".

I've said this many times and it just seems to be ignored by everyone. Agnostic..."a" means lacking the proprty of, "gnostic" means knowledge. So, agnostic means "doesn't/can't know." This is completely different from atheist..."a" means lacking the property of, "theist" means belief in a deity.I would say everyone arguing with you is an agnostic, they don't know. Most of them are also atheistic, they don't believe.Incidently, the 50/50 don't know either way is an atheistic position, because by not mkaing a decision, that means you don't actively believe, therefore you're an atheist.Here's a Venn Diagram that I know RAZD likes so much I would say the blue circle is the atheist circle and unfortunately we don't have a name for the people who fall into the red circle.Now, I wouldn't put an agnostic anywhere on that diagram because this deals with belief, not with knowledge.While it is logical to be an agnostic, since we don't have all knowledge, it is also logical to be an atheist, since having a belief FOR anything for which we have no evidence is irrational and could lead to all sorts of bad things.

Hi Modulous,

quote:

---

You propose that this commonality is because of some kernal of truth. I propose that there is no evidence for this, you might as well say that the commonality of beliefs is caused by strange undetectable moon rays, or secret CIA poison. They are all equally evidenced and there is therefore no reason to prefer one to another.

---

You're aware of the scenario where blind people feel different parts of an elephant and each comes to a different conclusion as to what the whole creature is? It's still an elephant, even though each person has a limited experience of it and doesn't quite get at the truth due to their own limitations. It seems to me that religion might be a similar thing. We don't know for sure but IMO it's reasonable enough to posit, based on known human behaviour going back thousands of years.

quote:

---

Religion is as it is because of its appeal to human brains, it has evolved to whatever mental conditions it finds itself in. That doesn't mean necessarily that the brain has been put together so that we would believe, but that we believe because of how the brain is put together.

---

That's one interpretation, sure. I agree that this would make an interesting discussion in another place and another time, and in some ways it would be easier because there's more evidence to go on.

quote:

---

And my point is that there are still more unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities that are not 'divine'.

---

And my reaction to them is, "I don't know."My aim in most of these conversations is to keep the door open to possibilities. We may think we know what's real and what isn't but there's always the possibility that we're grossly mistaken about something, or that a major discovery is waiting to happen. If we never leave room to consider these possibilities then . . . well presumably we all claim to be searching for the truth, don't we?There are people who claim to be able to do astral projection. Talk to spirits. See fairies. And so on. Maybe some of them actually can. I try to be neutral upon investigating any such claims because I don't want to be duped and I don't want to grab a supernatural explanation when there's a natural one. But I also don't know that those things are impossible. So a degree of agnosticism would seem to be a rational position until further evidence comes to light.

quote:

---

You can continuously generalise until all you are saying is nothing.

---

If there's zero evidence for or against any of it, and none of it appears to be affecting me in any way, then I'm happy to say "I don't know," give it no further thought, and go eat my dinner. I don't see a problem here. Once we have some evidence, then we've got something to work with.

quote:

---

But what about the universe being created by scientists from our own future? Or scientists in another universe? Or that the universe is actually a Matrix and we are all aliens? Or...

---

I didn't honestly think of that, it's been a while since I've read any science fiction. I don't see how it changes the initial rational position of agnosticism though, in the absence of all evidence. If you don't know what the answer is, then you . . . don't know. You can't decide how likely or unlikely something is, because you have nothing to compare it with. And if there's one correct origin of the universe to be chosen out of an infinite number of possibilities, then no matter how infinitely small its probability of being right . . . it is still right. Effectively eliminating all potential origins because they are all equally unlikely will result in eliminating the correct one as well. It seems to me that the answer to this increasingly tiring puzzle is either to find some evidence, or to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

quote:

---

Just because you know the motivations of one, or even many people, in discussing the IPU does not alter the IPU's truth standing. At all. How could it?

---

I do think that religious beliefs that have been genuinely been held by people -- or the commonalities of those beliefs -- edge out things like the IPU that no one has ever believed in, for the very reason that people have believed in them. Maybe there's a reality-based reason why they believe them, and something to be learned from that. Maybe not, but it's a possibility.

quote:

---

If there are two equally specific entities with identical amounts of evidence in support of them and you pick one of them - what are the chances you picked the one that is real assuming that one of them is?

---

I feel sure that we've drifted off topic again. But without sufficient evidence to choose one over the other, I would not make the choice; I would reserve judgement.

quote:

---

If you want to say that by god you means some generic divinity thing, then I will contrast it to some kind of vague scientific conspiracy from another realm thing.

---

You can make up whatever you like. I'd still say, "I don't know."

Hi Bluegenes,

quote:

---

Linda, no one can prove that there's no such thing as pigs that can fly. According to you and RAZD, it would be pseudo-skeptical to be a 6 or 7 on the Dawkins scale about flying pigs.

---

I see; you are positing the upteenth hypothetical immaterial unevidenced entity in this thread. In that case, "I don't know." But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Doesn't seem to affect me, not a problem. Let's remember that the original premise of this thread is that if you are going to claim that you are certain that such entities don't exist, you need to support your claim with evidence.

quote:

---

You're a romantic, Linda

---

And why am I receiving that particular label from you? I haven't made a positive claim anywhere on this thread that any divine or other immaterial unevidenced entity exists. The proposal all along has been that if you shift your position from an agnostic one, it should be a rational decision that is supported by evidence. I said a little while back that it seems clear that the scientific method is not suitable for exploring ideas that lack empirical evidence, such as ontological ones. Maybe one day it will be, as our scientific understanding advances, but it looks like it's going to be a while.

quote:

---

Ritual cannibalism, head hunting, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, mutilations such as female circumcision, and evil spirits as causes of both physical and mental illness are all things that anthropologists have found to have been widespread and to have emerged separately in a number of different areas.

---

And steeped in rational empiricism as we are today, supremely enlightened, we can laugh off all such claims as superstitious folly, yes? You've got proof that demons or other spirits don't exist and they can't cause illness, either inadvertently or on purpose? I can hear you laughing now. You might just take a moment to ask yourself why you are doing so, and by what logical means you can be so sure that you're truly laughing at nonsense.I'm not claiming I believe in any of these things myself, but I'm not going to claim with absolute certainty that they are impossible either. There isn't enough evidence.

I do take you word for it. I accept that you don't know. Do you accept that I am not claiming to know either? But what do you mean by "genuine agnostic"? Are you ever "it's 50-50 I just don't know" agnostic about any defined but irrefutable claim? Or does every claim have a context in which it is considered? Your next statement suggests the latter. Hurrah! Hallelujah! And welcome to my position too! I would go a step further and say that we indisputably and always consider any claim in the context of what we understand about objective reality. In short this amounts to "No claim operates in a complete vacuum of all objective evidence". Something I have been saying in multiple threads for a very long time now.All the objective evidence available, including the context in which they arose, suggests that the concepts you consider "silly" (immaterial toilet goblins, ethereal squirrels and the like) are human inventions created to fulfill human needs. We don't know this with 100% certainty. Such entities by their very nature are irrefutable. They could be real. But a degree of "probably human invention" atheism is justified without accusations of pseudoskepticism. On this we presumably agree? Even if the exact degree of skepticism is more contentious.However the objective evidence available and the very same reasoning also suggests that any wholly unevidenced claim is also most likely a human invention. Once we accept this fact a degree of doubt becomes the rational baseline. We can squabble endlessly about the exact degree of likelihood that any given unevidenced claim is a human invention. But once we accept a degree of doubt as the baseline we can then move on to consider the more interesting questions that relate to this. Questions that look beyond the indisputable fact that humans can, and do, invent false concepts to instead consider the motivation for any given example. Or even the "why" for the more generic question of humanity invoking the unknowable to explain the unknown. Oh for the love of God! Certainty? Again? Forget certainty. I have never once talked in terms of certainty. Only relative likelihood. Why do you and RAZD relentlessly try and paint your opponents as black and white, 1 or 0 mechanistic binary imbeciles who are certain and definite about everything when the actual positions they present you with are the very opposite? It seems like a debating tactic. Please desist from these assertions. I don't claim to be certain about anything. Fine. In many ways I actually agree with you. I am certainly not denying that the unknown exists. That would be both arrogant and stupid. I think that there are many aspects of nature that we have yet to discover anything about. I hope that this is true and believe that it is. But it is also not very clever to ignore evidence just because it doesn't agree with the conclusion you want to be true. And all of the evidence suggests that invoking the unknowable and supernatural is a pointless dead-end answer that is almost certainly wrong anyway.If you personally choose to pursue that path I am not going to stand in your way. But if you tell me on a debate board that I should accept your particualr chosen and specially pleaded supernatural path as rational and consistent with the evidence then I am going to disagree with you. If you tell me that invoking the supernatural and unknowable is an "interesting" answer to anything then, again, I will disagree. I don't see "somethingsupernaturaldidit" as any different at all to "Goddidit" as an answer. We condemn creationists for falling back on "Goddidit" but how is what you are doing here ultimately any different? I leave you with my previous set of questions regarding this very point. I await your answers with keen anticipation.