Why you can't find God

[Angrboda]

This is what's known as an ad hoc argument, and it is basically synonymous with making up excuses to fit your desired conclusion.  Such arguments are also considered fallacious and invalid.

You're going to have to explain how that is what I've done, because I don't see it. And given how you've completely ignored the extreme problems with your previous posts, I don't think it's out of the question to demand that before I engage you any further.

Even if wrong, my analysis of your prior post is a direct response to its argument and therefore not conceivably a form of ignoring it, so you simply prove yourself to be a bit of a liar. Well, if you insist that I explain it to you....

Atheism having no purpose fails to demonstrate any reason why it would be less in need of excuses than any other subject with attendant apologia. And it doesn't follow that if atheism has no purpose other than to discount theism that it therefore cannot be a locus of truth and knowledge. Furthermore it's simply not true. Atheism serves the same purpose as theism, namely that of fulfilling people's need to understand the universe around them and what their being in it means to them. Since the reason you give for atheism not needing any excuses is a non sequitur then it is by definition an unreasonable objection.

Science isn't a philosophy. It isn't necessary for things to be a philosophy in order for them to attract defendants whose defenses are nothing more than excuses, so it doesn't follow that science not being a philosophy is the reason it doesn't promote excuses and it most certainly doesn't follow that it is not a locus of truth and knowledge because philosophies aren't the only bearers of truth and knowledge. So, this, too, is a non sequitur and therefore unreasonable.

Philosophy being a generic term is also another nonsensical non sequitur. I'm not even sure that "generic term" isn't a bit of malapropism, but I think you meant general term, rather than generic. Regardless, I'll give you a bit of credit in that it may not have been clear what I was referring to by the term philosophy, so I will clarify. Oxford languages dictionary defines philosophy as, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." It's not obvious why you think those defending claims arising from the study of the fundamental nature of things would garner any less apologetics, nor exclude such apologia being populated by excuses, so this is another non sequitur. The term is broad, but clearly relevant to bodies of thought that attract claims, solicit apologia, are unconstrained as to the specific character of its apologia, and most certainly is considered a locus of truth and knowledge. My God, the word 'philosophy' literally means "love of knowledge," the suggestion that it is not relevant to my argument is not only unreasonable, it is absurd.

And the last, whether you're full of excuses, is a bit of a straw man, and therefore a red herring, but in as much as it is indirectly aimed at my argument, it is a form of argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone, and is by its very nature fallacious and invalid. There is nothing reasonable about fallacious objections which don't even address the actual argument, but rather simply exorcise a bit of apparent butthurt. Whether you, personally, are filled with excuses about your Christianity does nothing to address whether religion, generally, is full of excuses. As such, this is a red herring and therefore also unreasonable.

Fallacyinlogic.com defines the ad hoc fallacy as, "a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged." Your response, with the possible exception of a charitable interpretation of your complaint about philosophy, fits the definition well.