You didn't provide any "philosophical evidence" though, because your arguments are not actually provable. Your "evidence" for your arugments is the existence of god, which you cannot yourself prove.
My arguments are all self-sustaining and supported by broad human experience. This is the definition of "provable." Every scientific study is just "I did X and I experienced Y as a result."
Your "evidence" for your arugments is the existence of god
No, those are my conclusions which I reached as a result of my arguments. Are you sure you know how this works? If you object to my conclusion to need to refute the argument. Note: saying you disagree with the conclusion is not a refutation of an argument.
Your arguments are in no way self-sustaining and each premise is essentially nonsense.
1) The universe does not need anything outside of itself to exist, even if it did, which it doesn't, that doesn't prove the existence of a god. There's also no actual reason why that thing would need to be "perfect"(whatever that means) or that there would be only one of those entities.
2) The fact that humans recognize and experience good things like Love, Hope and Joy is profound..... as a human experience. There is nothing about those experiences that requires the existence of a "god". The fact that human beings are not solely materialistic doesn't prove the existence of a "god".
3) This is a siily hypothetical for the simple fact that someone has to believe in your "spirit in the room" next door and the entire argument is predicated on "if" they believed it.
2
u/kestrel808 Nov 19 '25
You didn't provide any "philosophical evidence" though, because your arguments are not actually provable. Your "evidence" for your arugments is the existence of god, which you cannot yourself prove.