rational naturalism is impossible!

[bennyboy]

Fine, but there is no evidence for a matrix or simulation or mind of god.

There is evidence that we are in a world actually composed of matter and energy, that our minds evolved to deal reasonable accurately with a narrow range of that, that we are able to extend our evolved senses to perceive somewhat more than the narrow band evolution gave us.

To use evidence is to use your sense perceptions to draw inferences. If there is some systemic failure, weakness, or lacking in human perception, then evidence itself is meaningless as a determiner of absolute truth. So we end up with something like:

If X is true, X proves X is true.
If X is false, X cannot prove X is true.

Physical evidence is compelling only because we are fully immersed in X. Or to put it more accurately, we ARE X. So from an experiential point of view, evidence feels very compelling. From the perspective of a philosophical search for absolute truth, it borders on useless.