I'd suggest that it is far more probable than the idea that life is the result of nothing more than incredibly fortuitous blind processes without an intelligent root. No?
Then one reasonable conclusion is that your estimate of the chances are way off. The processes involved may have a much higher chance of producing life than you think and your understanding of the number of "rolls of the dice" are colossally off.
Also you are obviously wrong if we make some judgements about the nature of unicorns. If they are at all horse like then we know the odds of unicorns on the moon are very, very, extremely, very close to zero.
On the other hand the experiments we have done so far indicate that life arising through reasonable chemical processes is certainly non-zero.
Again, my only nitpick with Stile's position is that I'd say I'm "very confident" that God does not objectively exist (very small error bar), not I "know" that God does not objectively exist.
I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident.
As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to suggest that there's 11 dimensions. But it's a hypothesis being tested that can probably never be able to be confirmed.
Maybe as far as you're concerned but there are reasons to suggest 11 dimensions. They are powerful reasons if you know the history of physics. They're enough to create an hypothesis. There are even ongoing experiments to try to test the idea. There is nothing to support the hypothesis yet and it could very well be wrong. However, using Stile's definition of "rational" (which seems to be close to what almost everyone uses in regular day-to-day life) the idea of 11 dimensions is "rational".
From that you cannot say that you 'know' that such a thing doesn't exist.
Stile has been careful to define how he uses the word "know". You are not using the same "know".
Stile is attempting to capture how we all use the word in everyday language. You are using another definition that most of us mix up with the everyday usage.
The whole discussion between the two of you is only about which "know" applies or is most useful.
What you can say is that given the state of our current knowledge, it is unlikely to exist.
And that is exactly how most of us, most of the time, apply the word "know". When the likelihood of something is estimated to be low enough we say we "know" that isn't real. We may all have different values on "low enough" and have different values for "low enough" for different things but that is how we mean "know"
We do not get all pedantic (most of the time) and say "While I am not sure about this being non existent I estimate the probability to be 0.0000001." Instead we say "bullshit".
We also (other than in scientific papers) do not say things like "This suggests that the results have a bearing on the discussion at hand." Instead we say "That proves it!" Even you and I who know at some level of chance nothing is proved will still use that shorthand.