{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03681710213776722, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009501187648456057, 'mean_word_length': 5.0647482014388485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Stephen E. Parrish, "God and Objectivism: A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion" (Spring 2007) and Patrick Toner, "Objectivist Atheology" (Spring 2007): Not Even False: A Commentary on Parrish and Toner


 In Ayn Rand's philosophical perspective, and in the working epistemology of science, claims, about which there is no knowledge originating in the evidence of the senses, are considered— in the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli—" not even false." Theistic arguments presented in Tie Journal of Ayn Rand Studies by Parrish and Toner are in this category. Various claims to which Parrish and Toner refer are shown to come from misuse of intution, middle-school fallacies about probability, and attempts to deduce the existence of a god from temporary (and for the most part already closed) gaps in scientific knowledge.