Observation

The first task in Dead Sea Scrolls: Great Isaiah Scroll is to hear the text before turning it into a score. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: The Great Isaiah Scroll provides pre-Christian manuscript attestation for Isaiah. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Canon and Textual Reliability (H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: The Great Isaiah Scroll provides pre-Christian manuscript attestation for Isaiah. It supports textual continuity and the availability of key prophetic texts before Christianity, but it does not by itself prove Christian interpretation of those texts. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

When Scripture is involved, the first job is to listen before scoring. Is this a prediction, an echo, a pattern, a title, a challenge, or a later application? Those differences matter. A good reading should let the ancient text keep its own voice even while asking how it may point beyond itself.

Fulfillment language should be handled with care: later meaning can be real without erasing the first setting of the passage. Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Canon and Textual Reliability (H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

The Great Isaiah Scroll provides pre-Christian manuscript attestation for Isaiah. It supports textual continuity and the availability of key prophetic texts before Christianity, but it does not by itself prove Christian interpretation of those texts.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Scripture / Text / Textual Evidence / Manuscripts / Transmission, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY (Canon and Textual Reliability): The Great Isaiah Scroll gives pre-Christian manuscript attestation to Isaiah, supporting textual continuity and availability while not proving Christian interpretation.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY: +0.06 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

DSS textual reliability row. Supports pre-Christian textual attestation/continuity, not direct Christology or prophecy fulfillment by itself.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Tov, E. (2012). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

Vermes, G. (2011). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English.

Donner, F. (2010). Muhammad and the Believers.

Sadeghi, B. & Goudarzi, M. (2012). Ṣanʿāʾ Palimpsest (textual analysis).

Motzki, H. (2001). The Biography of Muhammad: The Issue of the Sources.

Brown, J. (2009). Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World.

Sadeghi, B. & Goudarzi, M. (2012). Sana'a Palimpsest.

Sinai, N. (2014). When Did the Consonantal Skeleton of the Qur'an Reach Closure?

Barkay, G. et al. (2004). The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom.

Habermas, G. (2012). The Historical Jesus

Casey, M. (1998). Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel.

Fitzmyer, J. (1979). A Wandering Aramean.

Roberts, C.H. (1935). An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel.

Orsini, P. & Clarysse, W. (2012). Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates.

Parker, D.C. (2008). An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts.

Metzger, B.M. (1992). The Text of the New Testament.

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural Memory and Early Civilization.

Durkheim, E. (1912). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.

Cole & Sambhi (1978). The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices.

Singh, P. (2003). The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority.

Dead Sea Scrolls: Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ)

Explanation: Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

Explanation: Conservative calibration for fairness; capped to avoid overstatement.

Explanation: Skeptical view that transmission drift undermines reliability; partially offset by redundancy.

Explanation: Redundant, early, and geographically diverse witnesses modestly favor reliable reconstruction.


Observation

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism does not begin with a microscope or an inscription; it begins with the conditions that make explanation possible. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: If both naturalism and unguided evolution are true, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliably truth-tracking is low or inscrutable. Read it as a question about the deep structure of explanation, not as a magic word for winning an argument. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are God (H-GOD), Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: If both naturalism and unguided evolution are true, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliably truth-tracking is low or inscrutable. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Philosophy asks the questions we often smuggle in without noticing: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why trust reason? Why treat goodness as more than preference? This item belongs to that slower, deeper kind of inquiry.

Naturalism, in this project, means explaining reality without supernatural agency; a natural mechanism may support it in one place without settling the whole worldview.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to God (H-GOD), Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

If both naturalism and unguided evolution are true, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliably truth-tracking is low or inscrutable.

Background / Context

Read this as philosophy / theology-proper evidence. Its category path is Philosophy / Epistemology / Reason / Public Testability, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-GOD (God): EAAN-style reliability concerns modestly favor a rational personal ground, capped because naturalist replies are substantial.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Mind-first frameworks can make truth-tracking reason less surprising, but the argument is not uniquely idealist.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): If unguided evolution plus naturalism undercuts reliable cognition, naturalism receives modest pressure; selection-for-truth replies cap the debit.

H-DEISM (Deism): Deism can ground rational order weakly but does not add much beyond generic creator order.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.07 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: -0.06 log10BF; H-DEISM: +0.02 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Reason/induction cap: this row is partially dependent with other reason, math, intelligibility, and consciousness rows; do not stack as an independent proof of H-GOD without overlap discount.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function.

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies.

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Explanation: Calibrated for Stage‑1 coherence: conservative weight to avoid double counting; sources and assumptions noted.


Observation

Naturalness issues in effective field theory asks how a measured feature of nature should be read once competing explanations are allowed into the room. In plain language, the datum is this: Tuning problems (Higgs mass, vacuum energy) raise meta-questions on parameter selection. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Tuning problems (Higgs mass, vacuum energy) raise meta-questions on parameter selection. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Tuning problems (Higgs mass, vacuum energy) raise meta-questions on parameter selection.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Physical Scales / Naturalness, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Naturalness issues in effective field theory nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Naturalness issues in effective field theory nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Naturalness issues in effective field theory nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Naturalness issues in effective field theory does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Naturalness issues in effective field theory does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Giudice, G.F. (2017). Naturalness, why it still matters.

Arkani-Hamed, N. & Dimopoulos, S. (2005). Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry.


Observation

Fine-structure constant sensitivity starts where measurement and wonder meet: a concrete feature of the natural world asks for interpretation. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: Modest shifts in α alter chemistry and stellar fusion rates, narrowing life-permitting windows. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Modest shifts in α alter chemistry and stellar fusion rates, narrowing life-permitting windows. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Modest shifts in α alter chemistry and stellar fusion rates, narrowing life-permitting windows.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Constants / Parameters, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Fine-structure constant (α) sensitivity nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Fine-structure constant (α) sensitivity nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Fine-structure constant (α) sensitivity nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Fine-structure constant (α) sensitivity does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.15 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Fine-structure constant (α) sensitivity does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Uzan, J.-P. (2003). The fundamental constants and their variation.

Fine-structure constant (α) sensitivity


Observation

The clue in Fine-tuning of physical constants for life is empirical, but the question it raises is larger than the measurement alone. The ordinary-language version is this: Life-permitting ranges for constants are extremely narrow; selection effects alone may not explain the conjunction of parameters. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Life-permitting ranges for constants are extremely narrow; selection effects alone may not explain the conjunction of parameters. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Life-permitting ranges for constants are extremely narrow; selection effects alone may not explain the conjunction of parameters.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Constants / Parameters, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Fine-tuning of physical constants for life nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Fine-tuning of physical constants for life nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Fine-tuning of physical constants for life nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Fine-tuning of physical constants for life nudges Idealism upward because it fits views where mind, information, or structure are basic. The effect is limited because the same clue can often be read in non-idealist ways, and it does not prove Idealism.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.30 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.35 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.05 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Legacy broad fine-tuning anchor. Should be reconciled later with EV-000349 and E-FINETUNE-CONSTANTS to avoid duplicate constants/laws scoring.

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Fine-tuning of physical constants for life does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Collins, R. (2009). The Fine-Tuning Design Argument. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

Penrose, R. (2004). The Road to Reality.


Observation

The clue in Fine-tuned dimensionless constants — α, αs, and mass ratios is empirical, but the question it raises is larger than the measurement alone. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that dimensionless constants such as the fine-structure constant, strong coupling, and particle mass ratios appear to occupy ranges compatible with stable chemistry, long-lived stars, and complex matter. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are God (H-GOD), Deism (H-DEISM), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Dimensionless constants such as the fine-structure constant, strong coupling, and particle mass ratios appear to occupy ranges compatible with stable chemistry, long-lived stars, and complex matter. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to God (H-GOD), Deism (H-DEISM), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Dimensionless constants such as the fine-structure constant, strong coupling, and particle mass ratios appear to occupy ranges compatible with stable chemistry, long-lived stars, and complex matter. This is modest fine-tuning evidence, but it is a dependent constants/laws datum rather than an independent global fine-tuning synthesis.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Constants / Parameters, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-GOD (God): Dimensionless constants and mass ratios falling in life-permitting ranges modestly support a design/theism explanation, but this item is capped because it overlaps with broader fine-tuning anchors and selection-effect responses.

H-DEISM (Deism): A non-interventionist designer can also explain life-permitting constants, though the datum does not distinguish deism from broader theism.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): Bare single-universe naturalism has some pressure from life-permitting constants, but multiverse, necessity, and anthropic-selection proposals keep the negative weight small.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Mind-first metaphysics can accommodate intelligible life-permitting structure, but the item is not specific enough to strongly favor idealism.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-GOD: +0.08 log10BF; H-DEISM: +0.06 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: -0.03 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.02 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Conservative constants/laws score. Treat as dependent under the fine-tuning cluster cap and do not stack freely with E-FINETUNE, EV-000349, or synthesis items.

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Luke Barnes & Geraint Lewis, *A Fortunate Universe*.

R. Collins, fine-tuning surveys.

Explanation: Less expected without credible measure story.

Explanation: Life-permitting constants modestly favor intention.


Observation

The clue in Flatness and horizon problems is empirical, but the question it raises is larger than the measurement alone. The ordinary-language version is this: Inflation addresses flatness/horizon but requires tuned potentials and initial conditions. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Inflation addresses flatness/horizon but requires tuned potentials and initial conditions. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Inflation addresses flatness/horizon but requires tuned potentials and initial conditions.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Cosmology / Initial Conditions / Arrow of Time, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Flatness and horizon problems (inflation & fine-tuning) nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Flatness and horizon problems (inflation & fine-tuning) nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Flatness and horizon problems (inflation & fine-tuning) nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Flatness and horizon problems (inflation & fine-tuning) does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Flatness and horizon problems (inflation & fine-tuning) does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Liddle, A. & Lyth, D. (2000). Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure.

Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P., Loeb, A. (2013). Inflationary paradigm critique.

Explanation: Calibrated for Stage‑1 coherence: conservative weight to avoid double counting; sources and assumptions noted.


Observation

The clue in Galactic Habitable Zone constraints is empirical, but the question it raises is larger than the measurement alone. In plain language, the datum is this: Only parts of a galaxy balance metallicity for planets with low sterilizing events (supernovae/GRBs). Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Only parts of a galaxy balance metallicity for planets with low sterilizing events (supernovae/GRBs). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Only parts of a galaxy balance metallicity for planets with low sterilizing events (supernovae/GRBs).

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Habitability Conditions, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) constraints nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) constraints nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) constraints nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) constraints does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) constraints does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Lineweaver, C. et al. (2004). The Galactic Habitable Zone.

Prantzos, N. (2008). On the Galactic Habitable Zone.


Observation

Personal God — mind, will, and covenantal relation opens one of the old questions in a modern key: what must reality be like for this feature of experience to make sense? For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Relational obligation, trust, betrayal, and covenantal depth modestly support a personal and relational view of God. Read it as a question about the deep structure of explanation, not as a magic word for winning an argument. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Relational God (H-GOD-RELATIONAL), God (H-GOD), Deism (H-DEISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Relational obligation, trust, betrayal, and covenantal depth modestly support a personal and relational view of God. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Philosophy asks the questions we often smuggle in without noticing: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why trust reason? Why treat goodness as more than preference? This item belongs to that slower, deeper kind of inquiry.

For mind and consciousness, the key distinction is between explaining what minds do and explaining what experience is like from the inside.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Relational God (H-GOD-RELATIONAL), God (H-GOD), Deism (H-DEISM), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Every culture treats promises, fidelity, and trust as serious realities. Humans intuitively live as if broken trust is not just inconvenient but wrong. This is hard to explain in a purely mechanistic world.

Competing Explanations

Naturalism: explains moral instincts as evolutionary strategies for survival, but struggles to explain why betrayal feels like a violation of truth itself, not merely a pragmatic loss.

Deism: affirms a Creator, but a detached God with no will to covenant cannot ground the sense of objective trust.

Personal God: mind, will, and covenantal relation at the root of reality explain why promises, truth, and faithfulness have the weight of moral reality.

Assessment

This evidence favors a relational God because it directly accounts for the universality and depth of covenantal expectations in human life. It does not merely predict cooperation but explains the lived experience of moral obligation and betrayal.

Caveats

Naturalistic accounts can partially mimic the effect, and cultural variation exists in how promises are formalized.

The force of this evidence rests on the universality and moral depth of covenantal expectation, which critics may reduce to psychological projection.

Bayesian Sketch

If Personal God is true → high likelihood that humans would experience promises and trust as sacred obligations.

If Naturalism/Deism is true → much lower likelihood that such obligations would feel universally binding.

Result: positive Bayes factor for H-GOD-RELATIONAL and H-GOD, mild disconfirmation for H-DEISM and H-NATURALISM.

Explanation: Relational and covenantal experience is more directly expected if ultimate reality is personally relational, but the datum is shared with moral and anthropology clusters.

Explanation: A personal God explains relational obligation and trust better than purely impersonal accounts, capped for overlap with moral realism.

Explanation: A detached creator predicts less covenantal or relational depth, though deism can still allow created moral/social capacities.

Explanation: Naturalism can explain cooperation and attachment but has some pressure on objective-feeling relational obligation; the debit is modest.

Swinburne, *The Coherence of Theism*.

Alston, *Perceiving God*.

Plantinga, *Warranted Christian Belief*.

Summary: Relational obligation, trust, betrayal, and covenantal depth modestly support a personal and relational view of God. The score is reduced and capped because moral realism, anthropology, and social-formation evidence already cover adjacent data.

H-GOD-RELATIONAL H-GOD H-DEISM H-NATURALISM

Theology-proper cap: this row is scoped to its own metaphysical or divine-attribute datum and should not stack freely with contingency, moral realism, reason, consciousness, fine-tuning, or math/structure evidence as independent proof of H-GOD.


Observation

Gravity vs electromagnetism strength ratio begins with nature being stubbornly specific, which is often where the best questions begin. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: If gravity were stronger (or EM weaker), star lifetimes and planetary stability change drastically. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: If gravity were stronger (or EM weaker), star lifetimes and planetary stability change drastically. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

If gravity were stronger (or EM weaker), star lifetimes and planetary stability change drastically.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Constants / Parameters, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Gravity vs electromagnetism strength ratio nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Gravity vs electromagnetism strength ratio nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Gravity vs electromagnetism strength ratio nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Gravity vs electromagnetism strength ratio does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Gravity vs electromagnetism strength ratio does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Stenger, V. (2011). The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (counterargument).


Observation

Global Workspace explains access, not qualia asks how a measured feature of nature should be read once competing explanations are allowed into the room. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: Global Workspace-style models explain access, report, and broadcast functions, but they do not by themselves settle phenomenal consciousness or qualia. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Reductive Physicalism (H-PHYSICALISM-REDUCTIVE), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Global Workspace-style models explain access, report, and broadcast functions, but they do not by themselves settle phenomenal consciousness or qualia. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

For mind and consciousness, the key distinction is between explaining what minds do and explaining what experience is like from the inside.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Reductive Physicalism (H-PHYSICALISM-REDUCTIVE), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Global Workspace-style models explain access, report, and broadcast functions, but they do not by themselves settle phenomenal consciousness or qualia. This gives only modest, cluster-capped pressure against reductive physicalism and slight support to mind-first or emergent accounts.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Consciousness &amp; Mind / Cognitive Neuroscience, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Global Workspace models explain access, report, and broadcast functions while leaving phenomenal feel contested; this modestly favors mind-first accounts, capped because E-CONSCIOUSNESS carries the broader hard-problem weight.

H-PHYSICALISM-REDUCTIVE (Reductive Physicalism): A remaining access/qualia gap mildly pressures reductive physicalism, though identity and illusionist strategies remain live.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): The pressure on broad naturalism is small because naturalism includes non-reductive, emergent, and illusionist options.

H-GOD (God): Theism can accommodate mind as fundamental, but GWT/qualia debates do not directly establish God.

H-EMERGENTISM (Emergentism): Emergentist accounts can accept functional workspace explanations while treating phenomenal consciousness as higher-level; differential support is slight.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-IDEALISM: +0.04 log10BF; H-PHYSICALISM-REDUCTIVE: -0.03 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: -0.01 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.01 log10BF; H-EMERGENTISM: +0.01 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Modernized from legacy Stage-1 refs. Dependent qualia-gap support only; do not stack freely with E-CONSCIOUSNESS.

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Dehaene, S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain.

Chalmers, D. (2010). The Character of Consciousness.

H-IDEALISM H-PHYSICALISM-REDUCTIVE H-NATURALISM H-GOD H-EMERGENTISM

Explanation: Calibrated for Stage‑1 coherence: conservative weight to avoid double counting; sources and assumptions noted.


Observation

Long-lived, quiet stars and habitability asks how a measured feature of nature should be read once competing explanations are allowed into the room. The ordinary-language version is this: Habitability requires stars with stable output over billions of years; only certain masses/metallicities qualify. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Habitability requires stars with stable output over billions of years; only certain masses/metallicities qualify. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Habitability requires stars with stable output over billions of years; only certain masses/metallicities qualify.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Habitability Conditions, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Long-lived, quiet stars and habitability nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Long-lived, quiet stars and habitability nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Long-lived, quiet stars and habitability nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Long-lived, quiet stars and habitability does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Long-lived, quiet stars and habitability does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Kasting, J. (2013). How to Find a Habitable Planet.

Scalo, J. et al. (2007). M Stars and Habitability.


Observation

Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale starts where measurement and wonder meet: a concrete feature of the natural world asks for interpretation. In plain language, the datum is this: The Higgs mass appears finely tuned against large quantum corrections; naturalness under debate post-LHC. Read it as disciplined contact with nature: the measurement matters, and so do the limits of what the measurement can say. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: The Higgs mass appears finely tuned against large quantum corrections; naturalness under debate post-LHC. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Science rows are not shortcuts from a lab result to a worldview. They ask a narrower and more interesting question: what kind of reality makes this pattern, mechanism, or constraint feel expected rather than strange? The answer may help the map, but it should not pretend to be more precise than the evidence allows.

If fine-tuning is new language, think of a lock with many dials: the discussion is about whether the life-permitting settings look accidental, necessary, selected, or intended.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Deism (H-DEISM), God (H-GOD), God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

The Higgs mass appears finely tuned against large quantum corrections; naturalness under debate post-LHC.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Fine-Tuning / Physical Scales / Naturalness, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-DEISM (Deism): Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale nudges Deism upward because it fits an ordered cosmos without yet requiring a revealed or covenantal God. The effect is limited because the clue is broad and does not prove Deism by itself.

H-GOD (God): Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale nudges God upward because it fits a reality with deep order, intelligibility, or purpose. The effect is limited because rival explanations remain possible, and this row does not prove God by itself.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale does not clearly separate Idealism from other accounts of order and structure. It stays neutral because the clue can be read without settling what is most basic in reality.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

The evidence bears on interpretation, not on pseudo-certainty. Mechanism, probability, and metaphysics must not be collapsed into one claim.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale does not clearly pick out the God-OT frame from broader theism. It stays neutral because the row lacks enough biblical or covenant detail to prove that view.

Giudice, G.F. (2013). Naturalness after LHC8.

Dine, M. (2015). Naturalness Under Stress.

Hierarchy problem and electroweak scale


Observation

Hinduism — Ātman–Brahman identity is a reminder that the map must compare living traditions, not cardboard versions of them. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that advaita Vedanta identifies Atman with Brahman and treats non-dual awareness as disclosure of ultimate reality. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Hinduism (H-HINDUISM), Idealism (H-IDEALISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Advaita Vedanta identifies Atman with Brahman and treats non-dual awareness as disclosure of ultimate reality. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Comparator rows keep the other voices in the room. The point is not to flatten every tradition into a caricature, but to ask what each one actually explains, where it presses Christianity, and where it has pressure of its own.

For mind and consciousness, the key distinction is between explaining what minds do and explaining what experience is like from the inside. Idealism treats mind or consciousness as basic rather than as a late accident of matter.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Hinduism (H-HINDUISM), and Idealism (H-IDEALISM). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Advaita Vedanta identifies Atman with Brahman and treats non-dual awareness as disclosure of ultimate reality. This modestly supports H-HINDUISM and lightly supports mind-first/idealism, but phenomenology is not treated as automatic ontology.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Hinduism / Hindu Metaphysics, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-HINDUISM (Hinduism): Atman-Brahman identity is central to Advaita-style Hindu metaphysics and receives modest fair-seat support, capped because phenomenology does not by itself establish ontology.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Non-dual awareness reports modestly fit mind-first metaphysics, while naturalistic and participatory theistic interpretations remain live.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-HINDUISM: +0.08 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Hinduism fair-seat cap: supports Hindu-family coherence only within the stated doctrine/practice; do not treat as a blanket disproof of Christianity, theism, or naturalism.

Comparator evidence should be read fairly. It may support its own tradition or pressure Christian claims in a limited way, but similarity or difference alone does not settle the worldview contest.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Principal Upanishads

Radhakrishnan (ed.)

Evan Thompson

Summary: Advaita Vedanta identifies Atman with Brahman and treats non-dual awareness as disclosure of ultimate reality. This modestly supports `H-HINDUISM` and lightly supports mind-first/idealism, but phenomenology is not treated as automatic ontology.

Hinduism — Ātman–Brahman identity (consciousness primacy)

Explanation: Phenomenology alignment.

Explanation: Maintains Creator–creature distinction.

Explanation: Neuro account fits experiences.


Observation

Hindu cyclic cosmology vs empirical expansion is a reminder that the map must compare living traditions, not cardboard versions of them. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Traditional Hindu cyclic cosmologies have some tension with contemporary expansion and thermodynamic evidence. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Hinduism (H-HINDUISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Traditional Hindu cyclic cosmologies have some tension with contemporary expansion and thermodynamic evidence. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Comparator rows keep the other voices in the room. The point is not to flatten every tradition into a caricature, but to ask what each one actually explains, where it presses Christianity, and where it has pressure of its own.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Hinduism (H-HINDUISM). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Traditional Hindu cyclic cosmologies have some tension with contemporary expansion and thermodynamic evidence. The effect is small and only targets cosmological fit, not Hinduism as a whole.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Hinduism / Cosmology, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-HINDUISM (Hinduism): Classical cyclic cosmology has some tension with contemporary expansion/thermodynamic evidence, but this only weakly pressures Hinduism because Hindu traditions are diverse and cosmological texts are interpreted differently.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-HINDUISM: -0.04 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Hinduism fair-seat cap: supports Hindu-family coherence only within the stated doctrine/practice; do not treat as a blanket disproof of Christianity, theism, or naturalism.

Comparator evidence should be read fairly. It may support its own tradition or pressure Christian claims in a limited way, but similarity or difference alone does not settle the worldview contest.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Kloppenborg, B. (2010). Time and Cosmology in Hindu Thought.


Observation

Devotional transformation as evidential coherence asks the reader to take a rival tradition seriously before deciding where it fits in the wider map. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that bhakti movements report transformative devotion, ritual discipline, and communal ethics consistent with Hindu devotional theism. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Hinduism (H-HINDUISM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Bhakti movements report transformative devotion, ritual discipline, and communal ethics consistent with Hindu devotional theism. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Comparator rows keep the other voices in the room. The point is not to flatten every tradition into a caricature, but to ask what each one actually explains, where it presses Christianity, and where it has pressure of its own.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Hinduism (H-HINDUISM). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Bhakti movements report transformative devotion, ritual discipline, and communal ethics consistent with Hindu devotional theism. This gives modest fair-seat support to H-HINDUISM, while remaining weakly discriminating because many traditions produce devotional transformation.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Hinduism / Devotional Practice, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-HINDUISM (Hinduism): Bhakti devotional transformation modestly supports Hindu-family coherence as lived-practice evidence, but similar transformation occurs across traditions and natural mechanisms remain available.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-HINDUISM: +0.06 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Hinduism fair-seat cap: supports Hindu-family coherence only within the stated doctrine/practice; do not treat as a blanket disproof of Christianity, theism, or naturalism.

Comparator evidence should be read fairly. It may support its own tradition or pressure Christian claims in a limited way, but similarity or difference alone does not settle the worldview contest.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Hardy, F. (1983). Viraha—Separation in Love.

Carman, J.B. (1974). The Theology of Rāmānuja.

Summary: Bhakti movements report transformative devotion, ritual discipline, and communal ethics consistent with Hindu devotional theism. This gives modest fair-seat support to `H-HINDUISM`, while remaining weakly discriminating because many traditions produce devotional transformation.

Explanation: Conservative calibration for fairness; capped to avoid overstatement.


Observation

Philosophical theism within Vedānta is a reminder that the map must compare living traditions, not cardboard versions of them. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Ramanuja and Madhva show that Hindu tradition includes philosophically serious personal-theist forms, not only impersonal monism. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Hinduism (H-HINDUISM), God (H-GOD); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Ramanuja and Madhva show that Hindu tradition includes philosophically serious personal-theist forms, not only impersonal monism. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Comparator rows keep the other voices in the room. The point is not to flatten every tradition into a caricature, but to ask what each one actually explains, where it presses Christianity, and where it has pressure of its own.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Hinduism (H-HINDUISM), and God (H-GOD). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Ramanuja and Madhva show that Hindu tradition includes philosophically serious personal-theist forms, not only impersonal monism. This modestly strengthens Hindu fair-seat representation and gives a tiny nudge to generic theism, without scoring Christianity or Judaism by proxy.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Hinduism / Hindu Metaphysics, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-HINDUISM (Hinduism): Ramanuja/Madhva-style Vedanta gives Hinduism a philosophically serious personal-theist form, but does not settle between Hindu and non-Hindu theisms.

H-GOD (God): Philosophical theism within Vedanta modestly supports generic theism without functioning as direct Christian or OT-theism evidence.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-HINDUISM: +0.08 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Hinduism fair-seat cap: supports Hindu-family coherence only within the stated doctrine/practice; do not treat as a blanket disproof of Christianity, theism, or naturalism.

Comparator evidence should be read fairly. It may support its own tradition or pressure Christian claims in a limited way, but similarity or difference alone does not settle the worldview contest.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Gavin Flood, *An Introduction to Hinduism*

Philosophical theism within Vedānta (Rāmānuja, Madhva)

Explanation: Overlap with virtue/devotion; doctrinal conflict.

Explanation: Practice-transformation; contested empirics.

Explanation: Psychological mechanisms suffice for some effects.


Observation

Early baptismal formulae and divine name usage asks the reader to listen for the difference between a rumor, a tradition, and a historically anchored claim. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether baptism and prayer practices invoke Jesus alongside God, indicating early inclusion in divine identity fits some explanations better than others. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Baptism and prayer practices invoke Jesus alongside God, indicating early inclusion in divine identity. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

A creed is a compact saying made to be remembered and handed on; its importance is often that it is early, public, and repeatable.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Christ as Logos (Final) (H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS), and Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Baptism and prayer practices invoke Jesus alongside God, indicating early inclusion in divine identity.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / Early Christology / Worship / Creed / Hymn / Tradition, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Early baptismal and prayer practices invoking Jesus alongside God modestly support early high Christology and divine-identity framing. The effect is capped because this is practice/tradition evidence, not direct resurrection evidence.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): Cultic alignment with Christ and Spirit is modestly more expected if Jesus is understood within divine identity or Logos-shaped worship, but the current article is brief and dependent on wider tradition evidence.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Early worship-practice patterns slightly reduce late-legend explanations, while leaving room for development and interpretation; the discount remains small.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.06 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: +0.05 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Capped dependent/contextual support inside the early-Christology / creed / worship-practice cluster; do not stack freely with EV-ERC-1COR15, E-HIST-ORAL-TRADITION, E-HIST-SABBATH-SUNDAY, E-HIST-PHIL2-HYMN, or future Logos/hymn/tradition items. No resurrection BF applied.

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Bauckham, R. (2008). Jesus and the God of Israel.

DATA-approved early-Christology / tradition Batch values; capped dependent support; no resurrection BF applied.

Explanation: Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.


Observation

The map pauses over Enemy attestation and early criticism because movements, memories, enemies, dates, and public practices all leave different kinds of tracks. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: Early critics argue fraud, magic, or mistake — but rarely deny Jesus existed or was crucified. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Alt: Conspiracy (H-ALT-CONSPIRACY), Alt: Hallucination (H-ALT-HALLUCINATION), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Early critics argue fraud, magic, or mistake — but rarely deny Jesus existed or was crucified. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Alt: Conspiracy (H-ALT-CONSPIRACY), Alt: Hallucination (H-ALT-HALLUCINATION), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Early critics argue fraud, magic, or mistake — but rarely deny Jesus existed or was crucified.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / External Attestation / Non-Christian Sources, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-ALT-CONSPIRACY (Alt: Conspiracy): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-ALT-HALLUCINATION (Alt: Hallucination): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-ALT-SWOON (Alt: Swoon): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-DEISM (Deism): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-GOD (God): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-ALT-CONSPIRACY: 0.00 log10BF; H-ALT-HALLUCINATION: 0.00 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.05 log10BF; H-ALT-SWOON: 0.00 log10BF; H-DEISM: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: 0.00 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) leaves the conspiracy alternative possible but not especially favored. It stays neutral because basic historical anchoring does not decide which alternative best explains the later claims.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) leaves the hallucination alternative possible but not especially favored. It stays neutral because basic historical anchoring does not decide which alternative best explains the later claims.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) slightly pressures the legend alternative because it anchors early Christian claims in public historical memory rather than a much later invention. The effect is limited because it does not by itself prove resurrection.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) leaves the swoon alternative possible but not especially favored. It stays neutral because basic historical anchoring does not decide which alternative best explains the later claims.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) supplies historical background but does not clearly select Deism. It stays neutral because the row supports setting more than conclusion, and it proves neither side.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) supplies historical background but does not clearly select God. It stays neutral because the row supports setting more than conclusion, and it proves neither side.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) supplies historical background but does not clearly select God-OT / classical theism. It stays neutral because the row supports setting more than conclusion, and it proves neither side.

Explanation: Enemy attestation and early criticism (Celsus, etc.) supplies historical background but does not clearly select Idealism. It stays neutral because the row supports setting more than conclusion, and it proves neither side.

Celsus (via Origen), Contra Celsum.
Tertullian, Apologeticum.

H-ALT-CONSPIRACY H-ALT-HALLUCINATION H-ALT-LEGEND H-ALT-SWOON H-DEISM H-GOD H-GOD-OT H-IDEALISM


Observation

In Non-Christian Writers on Jesus and the Early Movement, the question is not whether ancient history gives laboratory certainty, but whether this trail of testimony points more naturally one way than another. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: Several non-Christian sources refer to Jesus or to the early Christian movement. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Resurrection (H-RESURRECTION), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), Alt: Hallucination (H-ALT-HALLUCINATION); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Several non-Christian sources refer to Jesus or to the early Christian movement. They situate Jesus in Judea under Pontius Pilate, note the spread of the movement, and sometimes describe Roman responses. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Resurrection (H-RESURRECTION), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), Alt: Hallucination (H-ALT-HALLUCINATION), and nearby alternatives. That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Several non-Christian sources refer to Jesus or to the early Christian movement. They situate Jesus in Judea under Pontius Pilate, note the spread of the movement, and sometimes describe Roman responses. These texts are independent of the New Testament and provide an external check on key historical claims.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / External Attestation / Non-Christian Sources, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-RESURRECTION (Resurrection): External attestations slightly raise confidence that the early proclamation was historically anchored, indirectly supporting the context in which resurrection was proclaimed.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Independent, non-Christian references to Jesus and early Christians constrain pure-legend models that posit late invention detached from real events.

H-ALT-HALLUCINATION (Alt: Hallucination): Hallucination models focus on experiences; external attestations neither strongly support nor rescue them and modestly disfavor a purely internal account.

H-ALT-CONSPIRACY (Alt: Conspiracy): Hostile or neutral outsiders acknowledging the movement’s early presence is not what a tightly controlled fabrication predicts.

H-ALT-SWOON (Alt: Swoon): External notices confirm execution and early devotion; they offer little for a survival theory and marginally constrain it.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-RESURRECTION: +0.10 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.25 log10BF; H-ALT-HALLUCINATION: -0.05 log10BF; H-ALT-CONSPIRACY: -0.05 log10BF; H-ALT-SWOON: -0.05 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 (James, brother of Jesus)

Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3 (Testimonium Flavianum, contested)

Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars: Claudius 25.4; Nero 16

Mara bar-Serapion, Letter to his son (Syriac; 2nd–3rd c.)

Lucian of Samosata, The Passing of Peregrinus 11–13

H-RESURRECTION H-ALT-LEGEND H-ALT-HALLUCINATION H-ALT-CONSPIRACY H-ALT-SWOON

Renamed and normalized from EV-000159; focused on non-Christian attestations; citations cleaned; conservative bands with midpoint log10BF.


Observation

Jerusalem-centric proclamation and falsifiability is one of those historical clues that must be handled with both interest and restraint. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Jerusalem-centered proclamation may increase falsifiability because the burial location and body claim were locally checkable, but it overlaps strongly with burial and empty-tomb rows. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), Alt: Conspiracy (H-ALT-CONSPIRACY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Jerusalem-centered proclamation may increase falsifiability because the burial location and body claim were locally checkable, but it overlaps strongly with burial and empty-tomb rows. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

Resurrection evidence is connected evidence: creed, burial, witnesses, worship, and alternatives should not be stacked as if they were all strangers to one another.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), and Alt: Conspiracy (H-ALT-CONSPIRACY). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Jerusalem-centered proclamation may increase falsifiability because the burial location and body claim were locally checkable, but it overlaps strongly with burial and empty-tomb rows.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is History / Resurrection Context / Burial / Empty Tomb, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Jerusalem-centered proclamation is slightly less expected if the empty-tomb setting is pure late legend, but this row overlaps burial and empty-tomb evidence.

H-ALT-CONSPIRACY (Alt: Conspiracy): Local checkability creates mild pressure against a simple deliberate-fabrication account, while remaining too contextual for direct resurrection weight.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.04 log10BF; H-ALT-CONSPIRACY: -0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Context/location row only. It modestly pressures late-legend or simple-fabrication models through local checkability, but carries no direct H-RESURRECTION score.

This is a clue, not a verdict. Its force depends on fit with nearby evidence, competing explanations, and the cluster caps already governing the corpus.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Wright, N.T. (2003). The Resurrection of the Son of God.


Observation

Lucian of Samosata — mockery of Christians and the crucified sophist asks the reader to listen for the difference between a rumor, a tradition, and a historically anchored claim. The ordinary-language version is this: Lucian derides Christians for worshiping a crucified sage and living by his laws. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Lucian derides Christians for worshiping a crucified sage and living by his laws. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Lucian derides Christians for worshiping a crucified sage and living by his laws.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / External Attestation / Non-Christian Sources, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Hostile late satire modestly corroborates public knowledge that Christians worshiped a crucified founder and lived by his teaching. This is background/external-attestation support only, not direct resurrection evidence.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Public hostile recognition of a crucified founder and enduring Christian practice is slightly less expected if the movement were mainly a late free-floating legend, but the late date keeps the penalty very small.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.04 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.02 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Batch 1 DATA-approved modest historical/background scoring; no resurrection BF applied.

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus 11–13.

Van Voorst, R. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament.

Explanation: Calibrated for historical coherence: moderate weight, cross-checked by multiple attestations where possible.


Observation

Dating of Luke–Acts relative to Paul asks what kind of memory the ancient evidence has preserved, and how much weight that memory can honestly bear. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Acts ends without Paul’s death; some argue for an earlier date, others for a literary cutoff. Read it with historical patience: testimony, chronology, public memory, and rival explanations all matter here. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Acts ends without Paul’s death; some argue for an earlier date, others for a literary cutoff. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Historical reasoning is humble work. We do not get a video recording of the past; we get traces: memories, letters, practices, names, places, enemies, costs, and claims that survived. The question is whether those traces look more at home in one story than in its rivals.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), and Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND). That does not mean the item proves those views true or false; it means the clue leans, however slightly or strongly, in those directions within the model.

Acts ends without Paul’s death; some argue for an earlier date, others for a literary cutoff.

Background / Context

Read this as historical or archaeological backdrop evidence. Its category path is History / New Testament Dating / Chronology / Luke-Acts / Pauline Chronology, which helps set expectations for what kind of question this row can answer.

Relevance to the Worldview Contest

This matters because explanations have habits. Some worlds make this clue feel ordinary; others have to work harder to account for it. The Signal tracks that difference without pretending that one row can settle the whole journey.

Competing Explanations

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): A plausible earlier Luke-Acts date modestly improves access-to-events and historical-setting reliability, but the argument is debated and remains indirect background support.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Earlier dating would modestly narrow the window for late legendary development, but literary explanations of Acts ending keep the penalty small.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: +0.05 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.03 log10BF. In ordinary language, this row changes the angle of the map; it does not carry the whole argument on its back.

Caveats

Acts reliability / chronology cluster; do not stack as fully independent from E-HIST-PAULINE-CHRONOLOGY or other Acts synchronism items.

Historical and archaeological evidence usually supports setting, chronology, or plausibility; it should not be inflated into direct proof of miracle or Christology unless the row explicitly warrants that bridge.

Citations / Primary Sources

Use the citation list attached to this evidence item for source audit. No additional publication details are implied beyond those existing citations.

Colin Hemer (1990). The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

Dating of Luke–Acts relative to Paul (cautious)