There is no evidence of a particular god’s existence

Maybe this example will help clear things up:

More specifically, you'd have to draw a straight line from DEISM to your specific god(s)

I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that.

can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.

You're wrong because I think that morality should be determined by a jury.

I find the Moral Argument particularly convincing, so let's use that.

I would argue the only way to have an objective standard of morality (e.g. stealing is inherently evil) is to have an objective lawgiver outside of humanity. There is the deistic argument.

I would also argue that the moral foundation of the Bible is objectively better than any other moral system, whether religious or secular.

Even our judicial system in America is founded on biblical morality.

There are also health statistics and crime statistics that could be shown in support of this statement.

SUMMARY

Deistic Argument: A god is required for objective morality to exist

Theistic Argument: If the moral principles of the Bible are objectively better than other systems,

...it would follow that the God who gave them is better than all others.

That God claims He is the only God and all others are false.

_________________________________________________________

Now I have not given a fully researched and annotated presentation.

Obviously, there are also debatable points in this argument that I'm sure you disagree with.

However, I have provided an argument that is logically coherent and evidence-based.

I don't see any fundamental laws of logic that I have violated, and that also doesn't automatically make me right.

I have also given examples of evidence that could be used outside myself (logical case for morality, statistics, American judicial system) that support my argument.

Again, my evidence doesn't automatically make me right, it just supports my argument.

Given this example, can you specifically show how I have violated the laws of logic or some such error, and how my supporting evidence does not count as evidence.

I'm not arguing for the correctness of the Moral Argument right now. I'm not arguing for the existence of God right now. I am arguing for the existence of my argument that God exists (you can see how convoluted this is getting!). That's it. Nothing more. I don't know how else to say it. It was nice chatting. Have a great day.

I'm not disputing you "have an argument".

I don't understand how you can imagine that you can formulate a logical statement without rigorous and explicit definitions.

I do not contest a stipulated definition per se, but if we were to have a debate using a "rigorous and explicit" definition, then it would be entirely dictated by that definition. Case in point:

If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material [verifiable Quanta] or spiritual [unverifiable Qualia]. (Merriam Webster Dictionary.)

God has real spiritual being. (Holy Texts.)

Therefore, God exists.

That is logically coherent. Debate over, right?

I use broad definitions in order to facilitate a conceptual context rather than one informed arbitrarily/conveniently by selected definitions.

Furthermore, using broad definitions allows each party to challenge the other's premise using argument rather than dictionaries.

A RIGOROUS DEFINITION NECESSARILY LEADS TO AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION

If something were to exist, it would have real being whether material [verifiable Quanta] or spiritual [unverifiable Qualia].

Citation please.

Not quite.

You've basically asserted that a god is an unverifiable.

an appeal to vagueness is an appeal to ignorance.  This is hardly definitive.

In other words, you actually enjoy debating pure, uncut OPINION.

Your embarrassing silence is deafening to my post #48, which is obviously proof that.....

If you were able to prove your particular god existed without resorting to general ontological arguments, would you? That is what I’m trying to get at.

Yes.

Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?

Would this context demand evidence?

What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all? If I were to coach one on presenting an argument for the existence of God, I would inform them to highlight the significance abstracts have in rationalizing existence, and that it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist," while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?

That's the reason I asked you this question, which you've yet to answer: "what is your understanding of physicality without the imaginary concepts which help you rationalize it, i.e. mathematics, science, and logic?"

...it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist,"

...while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?

How does one control for that which is independent from one's mind?

Kurt Gödel solved this one already.

Reference?

Kurt Gödel solved this one already.

Reference?

In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".

In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.

How does Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to the relation of perception and the mind?

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".

You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic,

...where you are still assuming truths.

This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.

You're conflating "mind" and "brain".

Every identifiable system and individual concept (monad) is "incomplete".  Which is to say, contingent on (or, part-of) contextual concepts (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).

Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".

You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic,

It is similar to formal arithmetic because it is what formal arithmetic itself is based on.  This is Zeroth Order Logic.

...where you are still assuming truths.

These are testable, verifiable REAL-TRUE-FACTS, quite distinct from OPINIONS and assumptions.

This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.

Logic itself is the evidentiary basis.

If you took everything that you know and added it to everything that I know and then added that to everything that everyone has ever known and will ever know, what would you call that?

Perhaps, "the sum total of human knowledge"?

Are you disputing (somehow) that there is "human knowledge"?

(IFF) there is "human knowledge" (THEN) there must necessarily be "the sum total of human knowledge".