Etc.

There is a real difference. You are asserting this is a fact, I have no idea. I do not know or have any beliefs about what it takes to make something non-contingent, other than it cannot depend on something else for its existence.

How do you know this?

Out of curiosity, do you think there are any objectively true political or economic structures? The way I see it capitalism, socialism, democracy, Republics, monarchies, ect. are all fictions (though no fiction is completely free from some connection to reality), but certain fictions seem to be effective at achieving certain ends than others. Ideologies like capitalism are much like religions, complete with dogmas and the belief by it's strongest followers that it's the answer to everything.

Thanks, Michael

You can find out more about Phil here

https://strangenotions.com/author/philip-lewandowski/

For example, he [Sean Carroll] argues that the existence of evil, the massive size of the universe, and the lack of consensus about God all bring that 50% confidence level way down.

Sean Carroll has always argued that the massive size of the universe is evidence against God. He argues that life and humankind could have come into being with a much smaller universe. Being excessively massive, the universe does not exist just to create human beings. It does not exist purely for the benefit of human beings as theists claim. Therefore a universe not created exclusively for humans is a universe not created by God.

Of course, the great flaw in the above reasoning is to assume that theists believe that the universe is created just for humans. Creationists may believe that but mainstream Christianity does not. Carroll's mistake is in conflating the two. The revelation of a massive fertile universe is evidence in favour of God, and not against God as Carroll claims. It opens the possibility of multiple sentient races worshipping their Creator. It is precisely the kind of universe an omnipotent and infinitely generous God would create.

You're studying to become a priest? I must pay more attention here. That is wonderful to hear. All the best, Phil.

If only I was thirty years younger ;)

Our brains are affected by external entities. No one denies that.

This assertion presupposes your Aristotelian conclusion.

It's the other way around -- Something like A-T metaphysics/epistemology is rather my conclusion based upon what we experience in reality.

If reason/intellect is not coming in real contact with the casual powers of material entities in some way, then rationality has nothing intrinsic to do with truth. So then the rational conclusion is that the intellect actually does come into contact with the casual powers of external entities.