>>A philosopher does not require proof in order to espouse a philosophical theory<<

Actually, he or she does. That's how the philosopher makes the point. This proof is more often than not self-evident. My criticism of a First Cause doctrine depends on self-evident proof--a priori, I suppose you'd call it.

I pointed out why the First Cause doctrine simply cannot work: it violates everything we know about causality to the point where it is simply absurd to even classify it as a form of causality. I don't have to get up and prove it. That causality is an endless chain both forward and backward is self-evident unless you have a real world example of something appearing or occurring that was totally uncaused by anything and, of course, there can be no such thing. Hence the a priori nature of the evidence.

As for reincarnation, I agree that it is likely and I do have an argument for it. However, its conclusion is not very specific. It does lead us to conclude that consciousness is somehow reborn or recycled in a physical body and that it appears that mind and body are mutually dependent. That means one cannot really exist separately from the other. The implication of this is that neither has any true reality but are manifestations of something more primal, more fundamental but whatever that is, it is not perceivable by us, not experiential. Therefore, it cannot be labeled because language cannot capture it. Therefore, to give it words is to necessarily misunderstand and mischaracterize it.

How do we characterize it then? You can't. It's something you feel inside, something you KNOW. However, that part can never be transmitted to another person, it is necessarily limited to first person experience. You give the appearance of grasping that it is experiential but then try to explain it to others at which point you lose it and become another dogmatic preacher. If you understood that it is only something one can know inside beyond language, you would simply leave off at that point. All I can do is demonstrate why a concept doesn't really work but I can't do more than that. It gives the impression I negate everything nihilistically but I don't. There's something beyond the words but I can't express it and if I try, I'll not only be wrong, I'll be dogmatically expressing my beliefs--saying this is how it is but offering no proof.

You can only prove what you can prove. Beyond that, it's just your feelings on the matter, at which point you have to back off. You've done as much as can be done. So I don't try to tell others what to believe at that point, I don't have any pipeline enlightenment myself. But I can show them why a superficial position doesn't work and doesn't even scratch the truth. What people do with that is up to them. I don't really know what to do with it either.