Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

Yes I am familiar with how an appeal to authority fallacy is defined, and that was textbook. You didn't offer any evidence to support your claim, just the assertion that "there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example."

You're saying that now, that's not what you said in your previous post though. Not that it matters, in the larger context of you evidencing any deity. 



Except you presented no argument? Hence it was a bare appeal using his name and the claim the belief was shared by "some very intelligent people". Are there very intelligent people who dispute his claim? Is there a broad consensus among relevant experts to support his belief? Have these arguments been supported by any evidence, ahs it been peer reviewed etc etc...evidence see?



You shared no knowledge though, just an appeal to authority, and are you seriously saying that the opinions of architects are not underpinned by objective evidence? 



Ad hominem literally means to the person, it is fallacious when a person ignores the argument(s) someone has made, and instead attacks the person making them, as you did. 
That one is called a straw man fallacy, since I made no such claim. Now, if someone presents arguments, as I did, and you ignore those arguments, as you did, and instead make a petty insult, more than one in fact, then that is ad hominem. Here it is again for clarity:

 Did it even occur to you that I might just not find them as compelling as you do? or did you imagine there is a consensus among philosophers that a deity or deities exist? As I suggested in the post you just answered without commenting on it, here:

Then there was this:




Again this kind of ad hominem doesn't bother me, why would it, when someone resorts to this kind of fallacious reasoning in a debate I usually infer they've exhausted their spiel. 




No indeed, but it would be silly to suggest one could not doubt the claim wizards exist, just because I'd never read a Harry Potter novel . It was your claim that philosophers have made sound arguments for a deity, I stated I had never seen one, not that I had never seen any philosophical arguments for a deity, just not any I found compelling. So I invited you to present one, evidence your claim in other words. It seems this was too much of a task to educate someone as ignorant as me, at least that's what you implied. I found and quoted one by Plato, it took about ten seconds. 

Try this, what is the most compelling reason you think you have to believe a deity exists outside of the human imagination? I already asked, but it went unanswered? Anyway off to bed now...have fun everyone...

OK, well let's work on what you mean by "objective evidence." 

Or you could read the explanation I gave a couple of posts back, or look the words up in any dictionary. Your hypothetical is moot sorry, since you're talking about a trivial claim, that's why I usually use the qualifier of sufficient objective evidence as my threshold for credulity. 

I also know what the word objective means, and I know what the word evidence means. I explained the difference between entirely subjective claims and objective facts, and compared it to a scale with the former at the bottom and the latter at the top, the more evidence from the higher end of the scale the more compelling I would find the claim. The most successful methods for understanding reality, are the ones designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible. 

Do you consider this to be evidence that the restaurant is, indeed, the best in town? 

Will you reject it as "subjective" because it involves people's opinions? 

I would withhold my judgment, and objectively test the claim, since it is eminently falsifiable, but yes it is without doubt a bare appeal to numbers and therefore an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Now I keep asking questions, and you keep ignoring them, while I promptly and honestly answer yours, so FYI, I shall not be answering another of your questions until you make some effort to answer mine that you've ignored. Debate requires reciprocity, and I am starting to feel a little like I'm being preached at, as you make claims, then when I address them, you either move on to new ones ignoring what I've said, or focus on minutia, like the numbers debate, which was tangential to evidencing a deity. Since you seem to be trying to make its existence an unfalsifiable concept. I explained my views on such ideas, and you ignored that completely. 

Now one more time, if you can't present any objective evidence that any deity exists outside of the human imagination, and by now that is the only inference left, then why not present the most compelling reason you think there is for believing the Christian deity exists outside of the human imagination.