Evidence for the existence of God

[Asmodee]

I see no direct or implied mention of apophenia there, nor any acknowledgement that it is a thing, nor that because of it humans recognizing patterns isn't exactly what one would call "meaningful".  On the contrary, you seem to put great stock in these supposed "patterns" with no suggestion whatsoever that they may hold no meaning whatsoever.

I acknowledge that apohenia is a real phenomena. That alone does not justify undermining the objectivity of science with radical skepticism.

To acknowledge a scientifically documented phenomena is hardly "radical skepticism".  In fact, to question any claim of science is a foundation of science, not any radical departure.  It is part of the scientific process.  For you to consider questioning your claims to be "radical" only exposes certain bias.  Aprophenia is absolutely something one must consider when examining any claim of supposed patterns, but it's not something you brought up when making such claims.

So what are these patterns?  What steps have you or others taken to show that they are true patterns and not simply falsely identified as patterns?  If you model the supposed pattern in a computer model, does the pattern hold?  Is the model able to accurately predict what should be observed, followed by observations (observed AFTERWARD) which confirm these patterns?  Are these patterns unerringly accurate?  And when modeling the pattern, were you sure not to include known laws of physics?  Something which follows the laws of physics does not constitute a "pattern".  For instance, I can use the known laws of gravity to accurately predict the position of the planets in the solar system, but that hardly constitutes any kind of "pattern".

Having an actual as opposed to a perceived pattern necessarily means that we can make predictions of what we will find with further observation.  For instance, given the numbers "3, 6, 9, 12, 15" a perceived pattern quickly emerges.  These are all multiples of 3.  So at this point we can predict that if the pattern holds, the next 5 numbers should be 18, 21, 24, 27 and 30.  If we then look at the next five numbers and find out that they are, indeed, what we expected then we have a rudimentary confirmation of a pattern, though the sample rate is so small as to be scientifically not very useful.  If, however, the next number is 19 instead of the 18 then the pattern does not hold.  The numbers certainly don't seem random, but that doesn't mean they are not.  And perhaps it is indicative of a much bigger pattern.  Perhaps the pattern is five multiples of three, followed by five multiples of three, plus one, and then five multiples of three, plus two.

So by the nature of patterns, if you find a pattern you can prove that pattern.  Bringing up aprophenia is hardly radical skepticism.  All you have to do is simply prove your pattern and aprophenia is summarily dismissed as a potential source of the pattern.

But I would guess the "patterns" you're talking about are the type which aren't so easily modeled, ie, the "imaginary" type, which you can only see the sense in AFTER you've seen the data.  This is exactly what aprophenia is.  I may be wrong.  If I am, please, enlighten me.  I will warn you, however, that things follow the laws of physics does not constitute a "pattern".  The rotation of the planets around the sun, for instance, is not a "pattern", it's the consequence of the laws of gravity and other laws of physics, to a lesser degree.  I'm sure solar wind plays some small roll in the exact location of planets, for instance.  But I will dismiss any "pattern" which is easily explained by the laws of physics as "not a pattern at all".