Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your god analogy is clumsy in this case. We aren't talking about something fantastical here. Reasoning is not difficult to define. We can go down that road if you'd like. Rather, the problem is, once you do define it, you will quickly find that LLMs are capable of it. And that makes human exceptionalists a bit uncomfortable.
"It's just statistics!", said the statistical-search survival-selected statistically-driven-learning biological Rube Goldberg contraption, between methane emissions. Imagining that a gradient learning algorithm, optimizing its statistical performance, is the same thing as only learning statistical relationships. Inconvertibly demonstrating a dramatic failure in its, and many of its kind's, ability to reason.
You act as if statistical processes can’t ever scale into reasoning, despite the fact that humans themselves are gradient-trained statistical learners over evolutionary and developmental timescales.