@DoubleAA I don't mean anything in the DSM. I mean an ideological, group-think inability to see what should be obvious.

@DoubleAA "I don't know exactly what..." The argument presented by Ibn Paqud or Rabbi Akiva according to the medrash. "...or how my critique..." Your critique was that "everyone agrees it's not a proof". Elsewhere you also implied (though perhaps you meant something else - if so, please clarify) that what was wise in either these arguments (or in creation itself?) is beyond you.

"I have no problem with concluding..." If I'm understanding you correctly, you are accepting Ibn Paquds proof?

"...my assertions are G-d-given..." that you assume that other men exist. What's your justification?

"...speak the same language..." Your language seems to be a very specialized one limited to a very small group of like-minded individuals and with little applicability in the real world. Yet you use its terms and definitions when engaging a broader world not limited by its unusual semantics. That's the main reason why I've been taking you to task for being misleading to the public at large.

And you still have yet to clarify whether or not you believe there exist "proofs" of models/theories/hypotheses in the natural or social sciences. That would be the issue to which most people are refering when discussing proofs of G-d's existence from the natural world.

@loewian If you don't cut it out with your linguistic elitism and just use the same terminology as me, I will not continue this discussion any further. I don't know how to be any clearer. I can't be bothered to argue any more about what collections of sounds should have what meaning in what idealized language.

@loewian The proof I presented is valid but not sound as I rejected the second premise.

@loewian I assume it. No justification.

@loewian "an ideological, group-think inability to see what should be obvious." I don't know what that is, but OK.

@loewian In general logic can prove just about anything given the right assumptions.

If you'd like to put forward a formal proof, listing all your assumptions and logical steps, I will be happy to read it. If you really can write such an intellectually coercive proof (you seem to think you have one), then might as well do so and end all theistic doubt once and for all, right?