And you know what, that might just very well be true if we’re talking about some supernatural force that is indifferent to its creations, not out of malice, but because it simply is truly neutral.
But as evidence for the religious capital ‘G’ God, the one who communicates and plans every little detail because he loves us so much? What is the point of these “subtle” proofs that took thousands of years to be studied and recorded when he has shown that he can just pop up anywhere or perform miracles and whatever the fuck.
It is no coincidence that the vast majority, possibly 99%, of devout religious people do not give a shit about using math to explain god because it’s all proven in their holy books. It is no coincidence that the “empirical” evidence is, in reality, just pointing at the existence of features and concepts of math and science rather than utilizing said features and concepts to prove the existence of god. And no, philosophical musings about morality using the language of mathematical proofs does not count as utilizing math and science (literally, all the axioms in these types of "proofs" are subjective shit like "bad" and "good" and not, say, the difference between 1 and 0).
And I didn’t even want to make a post dunking on religion, but I’m irritated because YouTube recommended some dumbass video by a channel called “Reformed Zoomer” and one of the arguments is “there is an infinite range of numbers between two numbers, and if we turn those numbers into letters, then every book possible has already been written. Checkmate atheoids”. https://youtu.be/z0hxb5UVaNE?si=RpjF6S0fHiF71iH-
I think it is logical that there must be a supernatural cause of some sort. And I mean supernatural in the most literal sense - something above or outside of the rules and bounds of the physical universe as we are able to observe it. If everything must have a cause, then at some point you need to posit something that did not have a cause to get the whole thing started. That thing is, therefore, not bound by the rules that everything real and observable to us is bound by.
But to posit anything in particular about that supernatural cause - that it any way resembles any religion's conception of God or divinity, or higher dimensional aliens, or a computer simulation, or a conscious process at all, or whatever you wanna come up - is itself contradictory, because the only thing we can say is that cause doesn't (or didn't) operate by the rules of the world we are capable of understanding. Maybe the cause is just that it was never possible for nothing to exist, so instead something does.
I'd convinced myself of this argument a few years ago, but it's not really set in stone. The universe didn't necessarily "start." We know that at some point there was a big bang and we think the universe started with it, but there is no proof that there was nothing before it. It's just as possible that something had always existed within nature, without a cause.
Yeah, I don't really assume that the Big Bang was the start of reality. But even if you take the stance that reality itself is without cause, then that's essentially supernatural - our understanding is that all things must have a cause. So there's some component of existence which doesn't comport to the rules we can observe. Same deal.