Observation

The clue in Semantic information and function in biology is empirical, but the question it raises is larger than the measurement alone. In plain language, the datum is this: Biological systems use functionally specific information; content-bearing sequences are evaluated against goals and environments. 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: Biological systems use functionally specific information; content-bearing sequences are evaluated against goals and environments. 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.

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.

Biological systems use functionally specific information; content-bearing sequences are evaluated against goals and environments.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Biology / Origins / Biological Information, 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): Semantic information and function in biology 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): Semantic information and function in biology 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)): Semantic information and function in biology 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): Semantic information and function in biology 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: Semantic information and function in biology 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.

Gell-Mann, M. & Sethna, J. (2004). Complexity and Information.

Szostak, J. (2003). Functional information.


Observation

Sennacherib Prism: Hezekiah 'like a caged bird' brings the argument down from abstraction into names, places, objects, and the stubborn particularity of the past. In plain language, the datum is this: The Sennacherib Prism is an Assyrian royal inscription describing King Hezekiah trapped in Jerusalem “like a caged bird.” It boasts of conquests in Judah but omits any claim to have captured the city. Read it modestly: material context can anchor a story, but it does not automatically verify every theological claim attached to that story. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are 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 Sennacherib Prism is an Assyrian royal inscription describing King Hezekiah trapped in Jerusalem “like a caged bird.” It boasts of conquests in Judah but omits any claim to have captured the city. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Archaeology is usually not a thunderclap. It is more like finding the furniture still in the room: a name on stone, a street, a pool, a title, a burial practice. Such things do not prove every claim in a text, but they can make the world of the text feel less invented and more historically anchored.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT). 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 Sennacherib Prism is an Assyrian royal inscription describing King Hezekiah trapped in Jerusalem “like a caged bird.” It boasts of conquests in Judah but omits any claim to have captured the city. This omission, from a hostile source that would normally exaggerate victories, matters because it lines up with the biblical report that Jerusalem endured the siege and Sennacherib withdrew. The record doesn’t settle how or why deliverance occurred, but it anchors the event as historical and narrows the range of plausible explanations.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is Archaeology / Ancient Near East Context / Royal / National Inscriptions, 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-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): A hostile Assyrian inscription confirms the Judah/Hezekiah/Sennacherib setting and does not claim Jerusalem was captured. This modestly supports OT historical backdrop while leaving the mechanism of deliverance open.

Bayesian Meaning

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

Caveats

OT historical backdrop only; do not score as Christology or resurrection evidence.

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.

ANET: Sennacherib’s Annals (Taylor Prism, BM 91032; Oriental Institute copy)

Younger, K. Lawson (1990). Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing.

British Museum Catalogue, Taylor Prism (BM 91032).

Oriental Institute (Chicago), Prism of Sennacherib.

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

Primary epigraphic witness: Sennacherib’s annals; published in ANET; extant copies include the Taylor Prism.

Explanation: External hostile source aligns with biblical outcome; omission of capture coheres with divine deliverance framing.

Explanation: If survival were a later legend, alignment with independent Assyrian records would be unlikely; this reduces weight for pure legend.

Explanation: Retreat could result from non-miraculous causes; Assyrian annals’ silence fits either theological or naturalistic accounts.


Simulation argument (Bostrom) — trilemma & priors

Summary: Bostrom’s trilemma: either (1) almost no civilizations reach posthuman capability, or (2) almost none run many ancestor-simulations, or (3) we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Granting its tech/motivation assumptions, this yields a **non-trivial prior** for simulated realities. As worldview evidence, it gives a **small, tightly bounded** tilt toward **H-IDEALISM (mind/simulation-first)** over base-level **H-NATURALISM** and is near-neutral for **H-GOD**; structural readings see slight support for **H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM**.

Observation

The force of Simulation argument — trilemma & priors is philosophical, which means it asks what kind of world we are already assuming when we reason. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Bostrom’s trilemma: either (1) almost no civilizations reach posthuman capability, or (2) almost none run many ancestor-simulations, or (3) we are almost certainly living in a simulation. 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 Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), 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: Bostrom’s trilemma: either (1) almost no civilizations reach posthuman capability, or (2) almost none run many ancestor-simulations, or (3) we are almost certainly living in a simulation. 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. 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 Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), God (H-GOD), 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.

Bostrom argues that at least one of the following is true: (i) few civilizations survive to posthuman stage; (ii) posthumans run few ancestor simulations; (iii) we are almost certainly in a simulation. If (i) and (ii) are false, then by an indifference/typicality assumption across observer-moments, most observers like us are simulated.

Assumptions & Sensitivities

Substrate independence: minds can, in principle, be instantiated computationally.

Resources & scaling: posthuman computing capacity is sufficient for vast numbers of detailed simulations.

Motivations & ethics: strong incentives (scientific, entertainment, historical) and permissive norms to run many sims.

Reference class/typicality: we reason as randomly sampled observer-moments within a broad class.

Violations at any step deflate the posterior. Moreover, "we’re simulated" defers the origin question to base-reality and does not by itself tell whether the base is naturalistic or theistic.

Competing Explanations

H-IDEALISM (mind/simulation-first): Predicts serious credence for reality as information/mind-grounded or simulation-like; Bostrom-style reasoning is naturally at home.

H-NATURALISM (base-level physicalism): Can fully host the trilemma (posthuman civs in base physics) yet does not prefer simulated over base observers without extra typicality assumptions.

H-GOD (theism at Stage-1): A creator could create or permit simulated worlds; the argument is largely orthogonal and so near-neutral.

H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM: Digital/structural readings of reality align weakly with a simulation-style ontology (structures generating observers), giving slight support.

Bayesian Sketch

Let E be: "Given plausible tech/motivation assumptions, a large measure of observer-moments are simulated; therefore, a non-trivial prior on our being simulated." Under H-IDEALISM, E is modestly more expected than under H-NATURALISM, which requires additional typicality moves to favor simulated over base observers. H-GOD is near-neutral (both base creation and layered simulations are compatible). H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM gains slight support from the structural/digital cast of the argument. Given heavy dependence on speculative premises and reference-class choices, assign a small, tightly bounded differential.

Caveats

Speculative inputs (tech feasibility, costs, motives, ethics) and contested typicality/anthropic principles.

Does not predict specific anomalies; double-counts if also used as a catch-all for miracle claims.

Even if true, "simulation" underdetermines base-reality metaphysics (naturalistic vs theistic base).

H-IDEALISM H-NATURALISM H-GOD H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM

Explanation: A live, structured case for simulated/mental reality is expected on a mind/simulation-first ontology.

Explanation: Naturalism can host the trilemma, but absent extra typicality commitments it does not preferentially predict simulated over base observers.

Explanation: Theistic creation is compatible with or without layered simulations; the argument is largely orthogonal.

Explanation: Digital/structural framing weakly aligns with mathematics-first ontologies; effect is slight.

Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

Bostrom’s trilemma yields a non-trivial prior on simulated reality; small, bounded tilt toward H-IDEALISM over base-level H-NATURALISM; near-neutral for H-GOD; slight support for structuralism.


Observation

With Computability and universality — physics as information processing, the evidence is not a relic in the ground but a pattern in intelligibility itself. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: The success of computational and information-theoretic models in physics suggests the universe is amenable to description as information processing. Read it as pressure from intelligibility itself, not as a shortcut from equations to theology. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Mathematical Structuralism (H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM), 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: The success of computational and information-theoretic models in physics suggests the universe is amenable to description as information processing. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Mathematics and logic are strange in the best way: they are abstract, yet the physical world keeps answering to them. This row asks whether that deep fit is just a useful human trick, a brute fact, or a clue that reality is rational all the way down.

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 Idealism (H-IDEALISM), Mathematical Structuralism (H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM), 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.

The success of computational and information-theoretic models in physics suggests the universe is amenable to description as information processing. This matters because it modestly favors views where mind/information is fundamental (idealism/pancomputationalism) over purely material brute-fact pictures.

Background / Context

Read this as mathematics / logic / structure evidence with cluster-capped force. Its category path is Mathematics / Logic / Computability / Formal Limits / Computational Reality, 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): The mathematical and information-structural success of physics gives only slight support to mind- or information-first metaphysics; this is mathematical-structure evidence, not simulation evidence.

H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM (Mathematical Structuralism): Computability and universality support mathematical structure as fundamental, but less directly than pure mathematics evidence.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): Material naturalism can use computational models, so this item is treated as neutral rather than negative.

H-GOD (God): Rational order can fit theism, but this item is mathematical-structure evidence rather than direct design evidence.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-IDEALISM: +0.04 log10BF; H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM: +0.08 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: +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

This belongs to the math/structure family and should not be stacked as a separate proof for every mathematical-order observation.

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.

Wheeler, 'It from Bit'; Lloyd, *Programming the Universe*.

H-IDEALISM H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM H-NATURALISM H-GOD

Explanation: Information-centric successes modestly favor information-first views.

Explanation: Material-first can accommodate as models; less expected as deep pattern.


Observation

With Numerical lattice signatures proposals, the Signal steps outside Christian claims long enough to ask what another worldview explains well. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Proposals to detect lattice artifacts (e.g., anisotropy) illustrate testability of some simulation models. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Proposals to detect lattice artifacts (e.g., anisotropy) illustrate testability of some simulation models. 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.

There may be no score attached yet. That is fine: some rows are here to explain the map, preserve context, or wait for better source work before they are weighed.

Proposals to detect lattice artifacts (e.g., anisotropy) illustrate testability of some simulation models.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Simulationism / Simulation / Information, 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

No active scored hypothesis is assigned. Treat this as contextual or pending calibration until governance says otherwise.

Bayesian Meaning

This item currently has no active Bayes factors. Its value is explanatory, contextual, or pending further article/source/hypothesis-seat work.

Caveats

Simulation/information seat deferred: do not proxy-score this row under H-IDEALISM, H-GOD, or H-DEISM until a dedicated simulation/information hypothesis seat is approved.

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.

Beane, S. et al. (2012). Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.

Hsu, S. (2018). On testing the simulation hypothesis (overview).

Batch 2 cleanup: simulation lattice-test proposals need a simulation/information hypothesis seat or explicit unweighted treatment. Do not use H-IDEALISM, H-GOD, H-GOD-OT, or H-DEISM as sloppy proxies. Active neutral placeholder refs/BFs were cleared.

Batch 2 source/article cleanup; no non-neutral Bayes factors applied.

Numerical lattice signatures proposals

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


Summary: As computation scales and arguments like Bostrom’s trilemma gain visibility, large-scale ancestor simulations become **conceivable** within finite but vast resources.<br>On a Bayesian read, this nudges expectations toward **Idealism/Simulation** (mind/information-first ontologies) over **strict Naturalism**, while remaining cautious due to measurement, selection, and model-assumption issues. The weight is **small and tightly bounded**.

Observation

The point of Simulation trajectory — compute growth and ancestor-simulation plausibility is fair comparison, not caricature: another religious vision is being allowed to speak in its own register. The ordinary-language version is this: As computation scales and arguments like Bostrom’s trilemma gain visibility, large-scale ancestor simulations become conceivable within finite but vast resources. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

The basic idea is simple: As computation scales and arguments like Bostrom’s trilemma gain visibility, large-scale ancestor simulations become **conceivable** within finite but vast resources. 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.

A Bayes factor is just a disciplined way of asking, "Should this clue raise or lower our expectation?" For mind and consciousness, the key distinction is between explaining what minds do and explaining what experience is like from the inside.

There may be no score attached yet. That is fine: some rows are here to explain the map, preserve context, or wait for better source work before they are weighed.

Trends in computation and programmatic arguments (e.g., Bostrom’s simulation trilemma) outline conditions under which technologically advanced agents could run vast numbers of ancestor-style simulations. If even a non-trivial fraction of civilizations reach such capability and choose to run many simulations, then generic observers are more likely to be simulated than base-level.

Background & Arguments

Compute growth: Hardware efficiency and parallelism trendlines (subject to eventual saturation) widen the feasible envelope for large simulations.

Simulation trilemma: (i) Almost no civilizations reach/post the required tech; or (ii) they reach it but rarely run many sims; or (iii) typical observers are in simulations.

Information-first motifs: Digital-physics analogies and code-like descriptions are sometimes invoked, though they remain suggestive more than probative.

Competing Explanations

H-IDEALISM (mind/simulation-first): Reality is fundamentally mental/informational; simulated-agent scenarios are unsurprising if minds or information substrates are primary.

H-NATURALISM (base-level matter): Reality is purely physical at base; simulations may be possible but typicality claims are speculative and hinge on contestable reference classes and priors.

H-GOD (personal theism): A creator could instantiate worlds (including simulated ones), but the simulation argument by itself does not strongly prefer theistic creation over other bases.

Bayesian Sketch

Let E be the combination of (a) plausibility conditions for high-fidelity simulations given compute trajectories, and (b) the trilemma’s typicality pressure. Under H-IDEALISM, E is modestly more expected than under a strictly base-level H-NATURALISM that treats simulation talk as anthropic speculation with heavy prior penalties. H-GOD remains near-neutral absent further commitments about divine intentions or information ontology. Given deep uncertainties (capability, motivation, ethics, reference classes), assign a small, tightly bounded weight.

Caveats

Reference-class fragility; doomsday/anthropic selection effects; feasibility vs fidelity trade-offs; end of scaling laws; energy/thermodynamic constraints; unfalsifiability worries if models are unconstrained; metaphor/ontology conflation when reading “digital physics” too literally.

Nick Bostrom (2003), Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?

Survey pieces on digital physics / informational realism (overview).

Compute scaling + simulation trilemma make large-scale simulations conceivable; small, bounded tilt toward Idealism/Simulation over strict Naturalism.


Observation

Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD begins with nature being stubbornly specific, which is often where the best questions begin. The row is trying to focus attention on one claim: The QCD θ parameter is constrained to be extremely small; naturalness puzzle lacks consensus solution. 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 QCD θ parameter is constrained to be extremely small; naturalness puzzle lacks consensus solution. 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 QCD θ parameter is constrained to be extremely small; naturalness puzzle lacks consensus solution.

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): Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD 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): Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD 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)): Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD 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): Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD 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: Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD 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.

Peccei, R.D. & Quinn, H.R. (1977). CP Conservation in the Presence of Pseudoparticles.

Crewther, R. et al. (1979). Chiral estimate of the electric dipole moment of the neutron.

Strong CP problem: tiny θ in QCD


Observation

Islam — tawḥīd coherence belongs to the comparative part of the journey, where difference and similarity both have to be handled without cheap victories. In plain language, the datum is this: Islam’s doctrine of God emphasizes absolute oneness without internal composition. 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 Islam (H-ISLAM); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Islam’s doctrine of God emphasizes absolute oneness without internal composition. This matters because it offers a metaphysically simple picture of deity that tightly integrates creed, worship, and law—presented as a virtue against polytheism and complex theologies. 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.

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 Islam (H-ISLAM). 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.

Islam’s doctrine of God emphasizes absolute oneness without internal composition. This matters because it offers a metaphysically simple picture of deity that tightly integrates creed, worship, and law—presented as a virtue against polytheism and complex theologies.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Islam / Monotheism / Tawhid, 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-ISLAM (Islam): Simplicity + practice coherence expected on tawḥīd.

Bayesian Meaning

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

Caveats

Strict-monotheism cap: supports Judaism/Islam or prophet-only readings only modestly, and is capped against overlapping Scripture/Text monotheism and non-fulfillment rows.

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.

The Qur’an (e.g., 112; 2:255).

Frank Griffel (ed.), *The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology*.

Tim Winter (Abdal Hakim Murad), essays on tawḥīd (overview).

Islam — tawḥīd (strict monotheism) coherence

Explanation: Trinitarian unity claims mitigate but not remove complexity worry.

Explanation: Simplicity explains appeal without truth-commitment.


Tel Dan Stele: “House of David” (bytdwd)

Summary: Fragments of a 9th-century BCE Aramaic victory stele from Tel Dan reference a Judahite royal house, most plausibly read as the **House of David** (bytdwd).<br>This extra-biblical, contemporary-ish dynastic mention modestly corroborates an historical Davidic monarchy as OT backdrop; weight is **small and bounded** due to fragmentation and minority alternative readings.

Observation

Tel Dan Stele: “House of David” brings the argument down from abstraction into names, places, objects, and the stubborn particularity of the past. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that fragments of a 9th-century BCE Aramaic victory stele from Tel Dan reference a Judahite royal house, most plausibly read as the House of David (bytdwd). Read it modestly: material context can anchor a story, but it does not automatically verify every theological claim attached to that story. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are 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: Fragments of a 9th-century BCE Aramaic victory stele from Tel Dan reference a Judahite royal house, most plausibly read as the **House of David** (bytdwd). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Archaeology is usually not a thunderclap. It is more like finding the furniture still in the room: a name on stone, a street, a pool, a title, a burial practice. Such things do not prove every claim in a text, but they can make the world of the text feel less invented and more historically anchored.

In the scoring table, this item mainly talks to God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT). 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.

Aramaic fragments discovered at Tel Dan (1993–94) contain a royal victory text that refers to a Judahite royal house written as bytdwd. The paleography and context place the inscription in the 9th century BCE. Many scholars read bytdwd as a dynastic name, “House of David.”

Background & Context

The inscription is fragmentary but preserves enough lines to situate it in an Aramean royal milieu (commonly linked with Hazael or a related ruler). Dynastic naming by “house of X” is standard in the region’s political idiom.

Relevance to OT Backdrop

OT materials presuppose a Davidic dynasty ruling Judah.

An external 9th-c. reference to a Judahite “House of David” slightly lowers the surprise of that dynastic backdrop without adjudicating specific narratives.

Competing Explanations (Unscored)

Dynastic reading: bytdwd is a polity/dynasty label (“House of David”).

Alternates (minority): A toponym or non-dynastic reading; considered less typical given comparanda and context.

Bayesian Sketch

Let E be an extra-biblical, 9th-c. reference to a Judahite royal house plausibly reading “House of David.” Under H-GOD-OT (OT historical/backdrop plausibility), E is more expected than if no such dynastic reference existed. Because the text is fragmentary and alternates exist, assign a small, tightly bounded positive weight.

Caveats

Fragmentary lines; ongoing (minority) debate on reading; royal rhetoric genre; inscription does not verify specific biblical episodes—only dynastic plausibility in the right time/place.

Explanation: A 9th-c. extra-biblical reference to a Judahite 'House of David' modestly raises the likelihood that OT dynastic backdrop claims track historical reality.

Biran, A. & Naveh, J. (1993, 1995). The Tel Dan Inscription.

Rollston, C. A. (2010). Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel (discussion of bytdwd).

Tel Dan’s bytdwd reference modestly corroborates an historical Davidic dynasty as OT backdrop; small, bounded weight due to fragmentation and minority alternates.


Observation

The clue in Teleology-like constraints in biology is empirical, but the question it raises is larger than the measurement alone. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether goal-like organization and constraint satisfaction in biological systems suggest directedness beyond blind aggregation fits some explanations better than others. 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: Goal-like organization and constraint satisfaction in biological systems suggest directedness beyond blind aggregation. 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.

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.

Goal-like organization and constraint satisfaction in biological systems suggest directedness beyond blind aggregation.

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Biology / Origins / Teleonomy / Biological Constraints, 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): Teleology-like constraints in biology does not clearly separate Deism from nearby theistic or non-theistic readings. It stays neutral because the clue is broad, and it proves neither Deism nor its rivals.

H-GOD (God): Teleology-like constraints in biology 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)): Teleology-like constraints in biology 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): Teleology-like constraints in biology 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: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.15 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.10 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: Teleology-like constraints in biology 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.

Noble, D. (2012). A theory of biological relativity.

Conway Morris, S. (2003). Life’s Solution.

Teleology-like constraints in biology


Observation

Top-down causation in complex systems asks how a measured feature of nature should be read once competing explanations are allowed into the room. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: Higher-level patterns constrain and influence lower-level dynamics (e.g., biological regulation). 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: Higher-level patterns constrain and influence lower-level dynamics (e.g., biological regulation). 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.

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.

Higher-level patterns constrain and influence lower-level dynamics (e.g., biological regulation).

Background / Context

Read this as science or mind evidence with scope-limited worldview relevance. Its category path is Science / Complex Systems / Top-Down Causation, 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): Top-down causation in complex systems does not clearly separate Deism from nearby theistic or non-theistic readings. It stays neutral because the clue is broad, and it proves neither Deism nor its rivals.

H-GOD (God): Top-down causation in complex systems 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)): Top-down causation in complex systems 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): Top-down causation in complex systems 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: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.10 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: 0.00 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.10 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: Top-down causation in complex systems 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.

Ellis, G.F.R. (2008). On the Nature of Causation in Complex Systems.

Noble, D. (2012). Biological relativity (downward causation).

Top-down causation in complex systems

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


Observation

Simplicity of divine unity is a reminder that the map must compare living traditions, not cardboard versions of them. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether strict divine unity has a parsimony appeal for Judaism and Islam and creates modest pressure against high Christology fits some explanations better than others. 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 Judaism (H-JUDAISM), Islam (H-ISLAM), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY); that is a map of relevance, not a declaration that the item settles those hypotheses by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Strict divine unity has a parsimony appeal for Judaism and Islam and creates modest pressure against high Christology. 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 Judaism (H-JUDAISM), Islam (H-ISLAM), Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res) (H-CHRIST-IDENTITY), 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.

Strict divine unity has a parsimony appeal for Judaism and Islam and creates modest pressure against high Christology. The score is capped because Trinitarian and Logos accounts explicitly attempt to preserve monotheism rather than abandon it.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Judaism / Messiah / Monotheism Claims, 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-JUDAISM (Judaism): Simplicity of divine unity supports strict-monotheist Judaism modestly, but this is a metaphysical parsimony argument rather than direct historical evidence.

H-ISLAM (Islam): Simplicity of divine unity also supports Islamic tawhid modestly, capped against existing Islam/tawhid rows.

H-CHRIST-IDENTITY (Jesus’ Identity (Pre-Res)): Unitarian simplicity modestly pressures divine-identity claims for Jesus without resolving Trinitarian metaphysics.

H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS (Christ as Logos (Final)): The Logos synthesis carries extra metaphysical complexity under strict-unity arguments, capped as a philosophy comparator.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-JUDAISM: +0.06 log10BF; H-ISLAM: +0.06 log10BF; H-CHRIST-IDENTITY: -0.04 log10BF; H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS: -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

Strict-monotheism cap: supports Judaism/Islam or prophet-only readings only modestly, and is capped against overlapping Scripture/Text monotheism and non-fulfillment rows.

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.

Leftow, B. (1999). The Trinity: Persons, Relations, and Substances.

Dale, D. (2013). The Unitarian Christian’s Faith.

Simplicity of divine unity (no Trinity)

H-JUDAISM H-ISLAM H-CHRIST-IDENTITY H-CHRIST-AS-LOGOS

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


Observation

The point of Judaism — ethical monotheism continuity claims is fair comparison, not caricature: another religious vision is being allowed to speak in its own register. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Judaism emphasizes ethical monotheism (one God; covenantal righteousness). 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 Judaism (H-JUDAISM), 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: Judaism emphasizes ethical monotheism (one God; covenantal righteousness). Continuity into Christianity (and later Unitarian strands) is invoked to argue coherence and moral fruits. 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 Judaism (H-JUDAISM), and God–OT (Classical Theism) (H-GOD-OT). 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.

Judaism emphasizes ethical monotheism (one God; covenantal righteousness). Continuity into Christianity (and later Unitarian strands) is invoked to argue coherence and moral fruits. This matters because it frames Judaism as a durable source of moral order claims, with Christianity as a disputed continuation.

Background / Context

Read this as world-religion comparator evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Judaism / Messiah / Monotheism Claims, 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-JUDAISM (Judaism): Long-run ethical monotheism supports Judaism as a coherent covenantal tradition, but much of the datum is shared with Christianity and generic theism.

H-GOD-OT (God–OT (Classical Theism)): Durable covenantal moral order gives a tiny support-layer nudge to OT-style theism without deciding among Jewish/Christian continuations.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-JUDAISM: +0.06 log10BF; H-GOD-OT: +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

Strict-monotheism cap: supports Judaism/Islam or prophet-only readings only modestly, and is capped against overlapping Scripture/Text monotheism and non-fulfillment rows.

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.

E. P. Sanders, *Judaism: Practice and Belief*.

Michael Wyschogrod, *The Body of Faith*.

N. T. Wright, *Paul and the Faithfulness of God* (contrastive).

Explanation: Continuity claim shared; differentiation elsewhere.

Explanation: Long-run coherence of ethical monotheism.

Explanation: Secular accounts available but less teleological.


Reader's Orientation

Scriptural hermeneutic prioritizing monotheism texts asks the reader to let the passage speak in its own setting before asking what it may become in the wider story. The ordinary-language version is this: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `E-PROPHET-ONLY-4` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

Socinus, F. (1605). De Jesu Christo Servatore.

Dale, D. (2019). Analytic Theology and the Trinity.

Duplicate/context under E-PROPHET-ONLY-4; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `E-PROPHET-ONLY-4`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.


Observation

With Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics — fit between math and the world, the evidence is not a relic in the ground but a pattern in intelligibility itself. In plain language, the datum is this: Mathematics developed a priori repeatedly anticipates empirical structure. Read it as pressure from intelligibility itself, not as a shortcut from equations to theology. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are Mathematical Structuralism (H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM), 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: Mathematics developed a priori repeatedly anticipates empirical structure. This matters because elegant, predictive fit is more expected if reality is mind-like or grounded in rational order (Theism/Platonism) than if it is brute, aimless fact (strict Naturalism). That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Mathematics and logic are strange in the best way: they are abstract, yet the physical world keeps answering to them. This row asks whether that deep fit is just a useful human trick, a brute fact, or a clue that reality is rational all the way down.

For mind and consciousness, the key distinction is between explaining what minds do and explaining what experience is like from the inside. 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 Mathematical Structuralism (H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM), 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.

Mathematics developed a priori repeatedly anticipates empirical structure. This matters because elegant, predictive fit is more expected if reality is mind-like or grounded in rational order (Theism/Platonism) than if it is brute, aimless fact (strict Naturalism).

Background / Context

Read this as mathematics / logic / structure evidence with cluster-capped force. Its category path is Mathematics / Logic / Mathematical Structure / Applicability / Structural Unity, 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-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM (Mathematical Structuralism): The repeated success of abstract mathematics in describing physical structure is more expected if mathematical structure is discovery-like and reality is mathematically intelligible, though selection effects and model-building constrain the score.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Deep mathematical intelligibility gives mild support to mind-friendly or idea-like metaphysics, but it is not specific enough to strongly favor idealism.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): The datum mildly pressures brute or deflationary naturalist accounts of mathematical fit, while remaining compatible with mathematically realist naturalism and selection-effect explanations.

H-GOD (God): Mathematical intelligibility can fit a rational-order theistic story, but this item does not directly establish agency, revelation, or personal theism.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM: +0.07 log10BF; H-IDEALISM: +0.03 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: -0.02 log10BF; H-GOD: +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 math/structure-family score. This is a broad rational-order datum and should be cluster-capped with other mathematical applicability and structure items.

This belongs to the math/structure family and should not be stacked as a separate proof for every mathematical-order observation.

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.

E. Wigner (1960), 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics'.

M. Colyvan, *The Indispensability of Mathematics*.

H-PLATONIC-MATHEMATICAL-STRUCTURALISM H-IDEALISM H-NATURALISM H-GOD

Explanation: Selection effects and practice help but under-explain elegance.

Explanation: Elegant predictive fit modestly favors rationalist metaphysics.


Observation

The scientific interest of Life-critical anomalies of water is not that it ends the argument, but that it gives the argument something disciplined to look at. That means the reader should begin here: Water’s density maximum at 4°C, high heat capacity, and solvent properties are unusually life-friendly. 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: Water’s density maximum at 4°C, high heat capacity, and solvent properties are unusually life-friendly. 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.

Water’s density maximum at 4°C, high heat capacity, and solvent properties are unusually life-friendly.

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): Life-critical anomalies of water 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): Life-critical anomalies of water 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)): Life-critical anomalies of water 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): Life-critical anomalies of water 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: +0.10 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: Life-critical anomalies of water 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.

Ball, P. (2008). Water as an Active Constituent in Cell Biology.

Chaplin, M. (2006). Do we underestimate the importance of water in cell biology?

Life-critical anomalies of water

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


Reader's Orientation

Zechariah 9:9: Humble king on a donkey invites a slow reading, because Scripture evidence can be powerful only when original context and later use are both kept in view. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: this row is best treated as a signpost to a related canonical item, not as a second independent piece of evidence. Read it carefully: textual evidence has to respect genre, original setting, later interpretation, and the temptation to make a passage do too much. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

Think of it as a signpost rather than a second witness. It may point toward an important claim, but the main evidential weight belongs to the canonical item named elsewhere in the article.

Existing Governance Note

This row overlaps canonical item `EV-000471` and should not carry independent Bayes factors. It remains as duplicate/context pending later merge, child/context rewrite, or deprecation decision.

France, R. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew.

Keener, C. (2009). The Gospel of John (backgrounds).

Duplicate/context under EV-000471; active neutral or legacy BFs cleared to prevent prophecy/text double-counting.

Summary: Duplicate/context candidate under `EV-000471`. Keep outside independent scoring unless DATA/Rob approve a merge, child/context rewrite, or canonical replacement.

Zechariah 9:9: Humble king on a donkey

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


Observation

Possible intertestamental influence is a reminder that the map must compare living traditions, not cardboard versions of them. In plain language, the datum is this: Possible Zoroastrian influence on Jewish apocalyptic motifs is contested and directionally ambiguous: it could be read as shared theistic convergence, historical influence, or contextual background. Read it charitably and critically at the same time, because fair comparison requires both sympathy and clear edges. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Possible Zoroastrian influence on Jewish apocalyptic motifs is contested and directionally ambiguous: it could be read as shared theistic convergence, historical influence, or contextual background. 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.

Textual reliability is about preservation, recognition, and transmission; it is not the same thing as proving inspiration or every theological claim.

There may be no score attached yet. That is fine: some rows are here to explain the map, preserve context, or wait for better source work before they are weighed.

Possible Zoroastrian influence on Jewish apocalyptic motifs is contested and directionally ambiguous: it could be read as shared theistic convergence, historical influence, or contextual background. Without a Zoroastrian or influence-model seat, it should remain unweighted context.

Background / Context

Read this as Scripture/Text support or interpretive evidence. Its category path is World Religions / Comparative Religion Context / Zoroastrianism, 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

No active scored hypothesis is assigned. Treat this as contextual or pending calibration until governance says otherwise.

Bayesian Meaning

This item currently has no active Bayes factors. Its value is explanatory, contextual, or pending further article/source/hypothesis-seat work.

Caveats

Intertestamental-influence direction is ambiguous; proxy scoring under H-GOD-OT was cleared.

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.

Hengel, M. (1974). Judaism and Hellenism.

Himmelfarb, M. (2010). Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ.

Possible intertestamental influence (contested)

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


Observation

In Empty Tomb / Women Witnesses — Reports of women discovering the empty tomb, the question is not whether ancient history gives laboratory certainty, but whether this trail of testimony points more naturally one way than another. The ordinary-language version is this: Reports of women discovering the empty tomb are awkward for inventors in that culture and occur in multiple sources set in Jerusalem—the least forgiving place to launch a falsifiable claim. 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: 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: Reports of women discovering the empty tomb are awkward for inventors in that culture and occur in multiple sources set in Jerusalem—the least forgiving place to launch a falsifiable claim. 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 Resurrection (H-RESURRECTION), Alt: Legend (H-ALT-LEGEND), Alt: Conspiracy (H-ALT-CONSPIRACY), 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.

Reports of women discovering the empty tomb are awkward for inventors in that culture and occur in multiple sources set in Jerusalem—the least forgiving place to launch a falsifiable claim. This matters because it fits what we would expect if the tomb were actually empty, and it strains models that depend on late legend, grief visions, or a hidden body. The evidence modestly favors Resurrection over purely legendary accounts.

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-RESURRECTION (Resurrection): Reports of an empty tomb discovered by women modestly favor a real empty-tomb datum and therefore H-RESURRECTION, but the effect is capped against the early creed and Joseph burial rows.

H-ALT-LEGEND (Alt: Legend): Awkward women-witness traditions and Jerusalem setting are less expected under a pure late-legend model, though source variation and literary shaping keep the debit modest.

H-ALT-CONSPIRACY (Alt: Conspiracy): A public, locally checkable empty-tomb claim mildly pressures deliberate-fabrication models, but conspiracy is not the main datum addressed here.

H-ALT-HALLUCINATION (Alt: Hallucination): If the empty-tomb tradition preserves a real public datum, a purely visionary account is less complete; the effect remains small and dependent.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-RESURRECTION: +0.16 log10BF; H-ALT-LEGEND: -0.10 log10BF; H-ALT-CONSPIRACY: -0.06 log10BF; H-ALT-HALLUCINATION: -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

Capped event-level row: empty tomb/women witnesses may modestly support H-RESURRECTION, but are partially dependent with Joseph burial, Jerusalem locale, and the early creed.

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.

Habermas, G. (2012). The Historical Jesus

Habermas, G. & Licona, M. (2004). The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5) — bereavement features (general clinical reference).

Brown, R.E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah.

Craig, W.L. (1989). Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection.

Jeremias, J. (1969). Die älteste Schicht der Osterüberlieferungen.

James D.G. Dunn (2003). Jesus Remembered.

Keener, C.S. (2009). The Historical Jesus of the Gospels.

McCane, B. (1990). Reassessing the Nazareth Inscription.

Bivar, A.D.H. (1968). The Nazareth Inscription Reconsidered.

Rahmani, L.Y. (1994). A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel.

Finegan, J. (1992). The Archeology of the New Testament.

Schonfield, H.J. (1965). The Passover Plot.

Koran 4:157–158 (denial of crucifixion understood by some as survival/substitution).

Cook, B. (1999). The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ? (debate).

Finegan, J. (1992). Archaeology of the New Testament.

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

compiled classical arguments (see notes)


Observation

Cosmic beginning and low-entropy initial condition starts where measurement and wonder meet: a concrete feature of the natural world asks for interpretation. The evidence does not ask for instant agreement; it asks whether observations like the cosmic microwave background and the hot big bang expansion show the universe has a contingent, low-entropy beginning fits some explanations better than others. 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: Observations like the cosmic microwave background and the hot big bang expansion show the universe has a contingent, low-entropy beginning. 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.

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 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.

Observations like the cosmic microwave background and the hot big bang expansion show the universe has a contingent, low-entropy beginning. This matters because a contingent beginning fits comfortably within a theistic framework where creation is expected. Under Naturalism, such a low-entropy initial condition is extremely puzzling and not strongly predicted. This gives theism an explanatory edge.

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): Cosmic beginning and low-entropy initial condition does not clearly separate Deism from nearby theistic or non-theistic readings. It stays neutral because the clue is broad, and it proves neither Deism nor its rivals.

H-GOD (God): Cosmic beginning and low-entropy initial condition 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)): Cosmic beginning and low-entropy initial condition 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): Cosmic beginning and low-entropy initial condition 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: 0.00 log10BF; H-GOD: +0.05 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

Low-entropy/cosmic-beginning item overlaps with E-COSMO-LOW-ENTROPY, E-LOW-ENTROPY-PAST, and E-LOW-INITIAL-ENTROPY. Do not stack these as fully independent cosmology-origin evidence.

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: Cosmic beginning and low-entropy initial condition 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.

Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and Evolution.

Barnes, L. (2012). The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life.


Observation

Bayesian methodology — why explicit likelihoods matter belongs to the discipline of the inquiry itself: how to ask, compare, doubt, and update without losing the plot. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Big questions (God, reality, revelation) provoke confirmation bias and rhetorical overreach. Read it as part of the public audit trail, the place where the map explains how it tries to keep itself honest. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

The basic idea is simple: Big questions (God, reality, revelation) provoke confirmation bias and rhetorical overreach. A disciplined method forces us to ask: How expected is this evidence if X is true vs if Y is true? That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

This is one of the map-making rows. It explains how The Signal tries to reason: not by shouting, not by hiding uncertainty, but by asking what each clue should do to our expectations.

A Bayes factor is just a disciplined way of asking, "Should this clue raise or lower our expectation?"

There may be no score attached yet. That is fine: some rows are here to explain the map, preserve context, or wait for better source work before they are weighed.

Big questions (God, reality, revelation) provoke confirmation bias and rhetorical overreach. A disciplined method forces us to ask: How expected is this evidence if X is true vs if Y is true? That’s what Bayes factors encode. They also keep us honest about uncertainty and independence of lines of evidence. This matters because the same dataset can be spun in opposite directions; a transparent likelihood framework constrains spin.

Background / Context

Read this as methodology / support-layer context. Its category path is Methodology / Signal Core / Bayesian Method / Likelihoods, 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

No active scored hypothesis is assigned. Treat this as contextual or pending calibration until governance says otherwise.

Bayesian Meaning

This item currently has no active Bayes factors. Its value is explanatory, contextual, or pending further article/source/hypothesis-seat work.

Caveats

Methodology rows clarify how evidence is handled. They are not ordinary worldview evidence unless a separate scored item makes that relation explicit.

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.

Barnes, L. (2012). Fine-Tuning of the Universe

E. T. Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (2003)

Ian Hacking, The Emergence of Probability (1975)

Explanation: Transparent Bayesian workflow improves reliability and reduces distortions; modest weight only, to avoid meta-double-counting.


Observation

Logic & Metaphysics — Contingent things exist and seem to require does not begin with a microscope or an inscription; it begins with the conditions that make explanation possible. For a first-time reader, the center of the item is simple: Contingent things exist and seem to require explanation. 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), 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: Contingent things exist and seem to require explanation. This matters because if every contingent fact has an explanation, the regress of explanation points beyond contingent reality to something necessary. 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), 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.

Contingent things exist and seem to require explanation. This matters because if every contingent fact has an explanation, the regress of explanation points beyond contingent reality to something necessary. Theism offers a necessary, personal ground of being, whereas Naturalism typically stops with a brute, unexplained totality. If brute contingency is a poor stopping point, the balance of explanation tilts toward Theism.

Background / Context

Read this as philosophy / theology-proper evidence. Its category path is Philosophy / Metaphysics / Necessary Explanation / Process, 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): Contingent reality and PSR-style explanation modestly support a necessary personal ground, capped for live brute-fact, modal, and naturalist replies.

H-DEISM (Deism): A non-interventionist creator can also explain contingent reality, though the datum does not by itself imply revelation or providence.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): Bare naturalism often tolerates brute contingency or weakens global PSR, creating modest pressure only.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Mind-first accounts can host necessary explanation, but contingency does not specifically favor idealism.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-GOD: +0.08 log10BF; H-DEISM: +0.05 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: -0.04 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

Contingency cap: this is the canonical active contingency/necessary-explanation row and should not stack freely with duplicate contingency rows or adjacent cosmology-origin/fine-tuning evidence.

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.

Barnes, L. (2012). The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Habermas, G. (2012). The Historical Jesus

Leibniz, G.W. (1714). Principles of Nature and of Grace, Monadology.

Pruss, A. (2006). The Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Koons, R. (2018). The Atlas of Reality (contingency arguments).

Craig, W.L. (1979). The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Koons, R. & Pruss, A. (2017). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

Mullins, R. (2013). Simplicity and Modal Collapse.

Pruss, A. (2018). On divine simplicity and freedom.

Collins, R. (2019). God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe.


Observation

Before anyone argues from Religious Cognition Across Cultures, it helps to notice the human scene it comes from. Put more simply, the claim being weighed is that religious cognition and practice appear widely across cultures, but the datum cuts in two directions. Read it as a human-pattern clue: illuminating, suggestive, and easy to misuse if it is turned into either proof of religion or proof that religion is merely projection. In the scoring table, its main conversation partners are God (H-GOD), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), 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: Religious cognition and practice appear widely across cultures, but the datum cuts in two directions. Theism can read this as human orientation toward the divine; naturalism can read it through agency detection, pattern recognition, social cohesion, and ritual functions. That is the thing to notice before the technical labels and numbers arrive.

Anthropology looks at human beings with the lights on: our rituals, fears, songs, sacrifices, longings, authorities, and moral habits. It can show why religion is so human without deciding too quickly whether religion is merely human.

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), Naturalism (H-NATURALISM), 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.

Religious cognition and practice appear widely across cultures, but the datum cuts in two directions. Theism can read this as human orientation toward the divine; naturalism can read it through agency detection, pattern recognition, social cohesion, and ritual functions. The item should stay modest and anthropological, not proof of any specific religion.

Background / Context

Read this as anthropological or culture-pattern evidence. Its category path is Anthropology / Religious Cognition / Cross-Cultural Patterns, 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): Cross-cultural religious cognition is modestly expected if humans have an orientation toward the divine, but universality alone does not identify which religion is true.

H-NATURALISM (Naturalism): Cognitive and social mechanisms such as agency detection, pattern recognition, and cohesion can explain why religious thought is widespread without proving it false.

H-DEISM (Deism): Deism can allow religious cognition, but it does not strongly predict widespread relational, ritual, and supernatural practice.

H-IDEALISM (Idealism): Mind-first metaphysics can accommodate religious experience, but cross-cultural religion is not specific enough to favor idealism.

Bayesian Meaning

The current numerical weight is intentionally bounded: H-GOD: +0.02 log10BF; H-NATURALISM: +0.02 log10BF; H-DEISM: 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

Fair-seat anthropology item: modest theistic resonance and modest naturalistic mechanism support. Do not use as proof of religion or disproof of religion.

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.

Justin L. Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (2004)

Robert N. Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution (2011)

DATA/Rob disposition: Stage 2 religious cognition/theism-naturalism candidate after cleanup; kept outside stage_flow pending final stage decision.

Rebalanced to include H-NATURALISM as a fair-seat cognitive/social explanation while keeping H-GOD modest.

Religious Cognition Across Cultures

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

Explanation: Natural mechanisms explain ubiquity, but costly universals remain a mild tension.

Explanation: Universality fits Theism cleanly; modest but consistent across cultures.


Reader's Orientation

The purpose of Unidentified Scripture/History placeholder is not to add another argument, but to make the argument more inspectable. The thing to notice before the technical language arrives is this: the item is not yet ready to teach or score; it is being kept visible as editorial scaffolding until the real claim is clarified. Read it as part of the public audit trail, the place where the map explains how it tries to keep itself honest. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

That matters. A serious evidence map should not gain confidence from a foggy item. Until the intended claim is identified, this row remains editorial scaffolding rather than public-facing evidence.

Existing Governance Note

### Blocked Placeholder
This item is not ready for public evidence use. The title, summary, and article are migration placeholders and do not identify a concrete datum.

### Required Decision
DATA/Rob must either identify the intended Scripture/History evidence item for rewrite or approve deprecation. No Bayes factors should be applied while this remains unresolved.

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

Placeholder disposition cleanup: Blocked placeholder: the current file does not identify a concrete Scripture/History datum. Keep unscored and outside stage_flow until DATA/Rob identify the intended item or approve deprecation.


Reader's Orientation

Before the Signal weighs evidence, Deprecate candidate: unidentified math/logic placeholder helps explain what responsible weighing is supposed to mean. In plain language, the datum is this: the item is not yet ready to teach or score; it is being kept visible as editorial scaffolding until the real claim is clarified. Read it as part of the public audit trail, the place where the map explains how it tries to keep itself honest. Because this row is unweighted or contextual, its job is to orient the reader rather than to push the totals by itself.

That matters. A serious evidence map should not gain confidence from a foggy item. Until the intended claim is identified, this row remains editorial scaffolding rather than public-facing evidence.

Existing Governance Note

### Deprecate Candidate
This item appears to be a migration placeholder rather than a reviewable evidence artifact. It remains outside stage_flow with no active hypothesis refs or Bayes factors.

### Required Decision
DATA/Rob should either confirm deprecation or identify a concrete mathematical/logical datum for a future rewrite.

Placeholder disposition cleanup: Blocked placeholder/deprecate candidate: the current file does not identify a concrete mathematical or logical datum.

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