Vladdy of the Temple of the Perpetual Nihilism,
Once and for all...
Lets's leave aside for now that you always refuse to answer any question put to you, but demand that others answer the questions you ask.
Let's leave aside for now that you've never managed to suggest even a scintilla of a method to take your from your "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" to an objective fact.
Let's leave aside for now that what you call "philosophical naturalism" is a straw man version of it that you've had to make up to suit your purpose.
Let's leave aside for now that the answers you are given you ignore, misrepresent or distort so egregiously that you destroy any attempt at rational debate.
Let's even leave aside for now your dummy-spitting, personal abuse and insult whenever you don't like something that's been said to you.
Really, let's put aside for now all that dishonesty, stupidity and bludgeoning nihilism and instead look at what you actually said - something typically crass as I recall about exchanging the "o" for an "i" in the "shot" of "hot shot" wasn't it?
Why on earth do you think that I'd want to reply to that?
Really, would you?
So here's the answer you deserve once and for all: I think that a godless universe is much more likely than your theistic one for exactly the same reason that you think babies coming from tummies is a much more likely explanation than my Storkism.
Neither position requires an appeal to absolutes, neither has anything to do with "philosophical naturalism" (either the real meaning of it or your straw man version), neither requires measurable degrees of probability whether in SI units or anything else, and neither relies for its force on any characteristics of our beliefs that we may try to retro-fit to rationalise believing in them in the first place.
If ever you finally grasp this point, only then you will be able to understand the hopelessness of your position.
And in the unlikely event that you don't just resort to the usual Vlad playbook of distortion, evasion, insult etc in response and you do grasp it, your only way out of the corner into which you've painted yourself would be to explain why your "intuition" about a god is any more likely to be correct for objective fact purposes than my intuition about a stork, or indeed about anyone else's intuition about whatever else happens to pop into his head.
Final thing: if you respond with the usual Vlad playbook, I'll have no interest in replying; if just for once though you do try to engage with what's actually being said, then I will.
Your call.
