Only Twenty?

[Esquilax]

#5 and #9 are certainly based on evidence.

Number five just asserts by fiat that the universe wasn't the product of natural means (step 3 in its process is simply "not chance") and leaves it at that. Moreover, it merely mistakes our ability as humans to recognize patterns and small elements of consistency in a universe that is, for the most part, far beyond our ability to understand, and then decides that, instead of this being a product of our amazing- yet limited- intelligence, it's a sign that the entire thing was created for us. It views the situation backwards.

As for number nine, although it asserts there are many miracles, the bulk of the writing about it fails to mention even a single one, instead relying on abstracts about what would qualify as a miracle. No evidence was given, hence, why bother?

To the extent that our entire perception of reality - existence - is based on our own sensory experience and second hand hearsay reporting that is 'revealed' to us by others, all of these from #1 to #19 are based on evidence.

Thankfully, I'm not a solipsist, so I don't need to consider the prospect that my reality and yours are different, and that yours might contain magic.

(I'm not going near Pascals Wager about hell #20 because I don't want get banned like SavedByGrace. Plus it's not nice to scare all the timid sensitive atheists so close to Halloween.)

Grace didn't get banned just for threatening us with hell. She got banned because her entire posting record was just one long refusal to engage with anyone, filled with faulty logic and by fiat assertions made across multiple pointless threads with no sign of content. The threat of hell was just the straw that broke the camel's back; no need to oversimplify it.