You said:
I hate to quote Sagan because I know he gets a reaction around here, but “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I don’t recall the names, but a famous atheist of long ago had dinner with another famous personage of the day. The atheist noted a beautiful metal model of the solar system, complete with working gears, that actually rotated according to the science of the day. The atheist remarked, “This is incredible. Who made it?” And his host remarked, “Why, no one. It just happened.”
The idea that everything came from nothing; the idea that order came from chaos; the idea that mind evolved from mindlessness; the idea that rationality arose from irrationality; etc. etc. is itself so incredibly extraordinary that it too clearly demands extraordinary evidence.
You completely misunderstand here; I'm not asking you to believe in anything. However, I also ask that you not try and treat the inability to prove a negative as proof for a positive.
Two Sioux were sitting on a hill looking at the coming rainstorm and one Sioux asked the other what caused the lightning. The other replied, "I don't know".
The fact that he didn't have an answer didn't mean that there wasn't one. Now, we know what causes lightning, and to jump ahead and say that it must be supernatural would be premature and fallacious.
I can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist. I can't prove that Mithras wasn't mankind's savior. I can't disprove the existence of the Great Juju or your kid's imaginary friend.
But please don't presume that the inability to deductively prove how the human mind evolved (interesting choice of words on your part) or where humanity attained rationality doesn't necessitate mysticism or the supernatural.