An atheists guide to reality

[Angrboda]

As I've already explained in great detail, yes it is.

Even this is true, it doesn't refute what I said because your argument was we need detailed explanations. I simply stated we can have simplified explanations without the details, and they can explain something and be useful.

No, I most assuredly did not argue that explanations need to be detailed. I explained that a good explanation needs to have explanatory scope, explanatory power, and predictive potential. Then I explained how your explanation fails on those criteria. In addition, one likes an explanation to be parsimonious, though it's not a requirement. You still haven't successfully justified why we should ignore those criteria when it comes to your explanation; until you do, your explanation fails.

If I do the math right, I think you moved goal posts about three times now.

Your explanation fails so many ways it's a smorgasbord of error. My pointing out additional flaws is in response to you making up new ways to justify accepting your explanation. All my points stand as originally made. It's you who's changing to different justifications as each one is refuted.

Who says we can't see we have a spirit let alone what it means to have a spirit?

What can we "see" which would unequivocally show that we have spirit? Anyone can see if they have or haven't eaten. Show me what I do or do not have which self-evidently shows that I have spirit. This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've said yet.