My2cents

I respond again with the following two points: First, this is a circular argument. You start from a premise (P2), which excludes the existence of anything beyond space-time , then you "arrive" at the conclusion according to which 'God' does not exist, because it transcends space-time. Second: The classical God-definition clarifies the misconception underlying your argument that attempts to limit the God-concept within space and time: "According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition." "Besides perfection and necessity, immateriality, eternity, and immutability also seem to point to simplicity as their ground. Because God is simple, he cannot have parts and so cannot have material or temporal parts." Divine Simplicity http://plato.stanfor...city/#GodHisNat

The above is not only ad hominem, but also a hasty generalisation. You may want to learn about the basics of critical reasoning and about what valid and invalid arguments (logical fallacies) are before signing up for a science forum. As you are probably aware, I neither started this thread nor did I argue for Kalam, I just did your job and quoted the argument that YOU brought into the topic. Then I asked you to clarify how that argument would refute the real god-definition, which you have been thus far unable to answer. Since you are unaware of the rules of an honest and logically coherent discussion, - you even resort to blatant lies like the one I quoted above, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

"Not unless you count Christian Apologists (aka professional liars) as philosophers." You wrote above line, correct? Does it sound "calm" to you? Not to me. It sounds like an ad hominem. No, wait - it is one! Okay, so your trolling attempts aside, you may want to decide if you are here to discuss this topic or evangelise your atheism. In case of the latter, as I said, I am not interested, so in that case feel free to ignore me from now on. In case you are interested in the topic itself, we can continue. Then please notice that neither the thread-starter post nor your posts rely on any "paper". He/she did not substantiate the truth-value of any of his premises with any reference, let alone scholarly sources. From the others you expect papers while you throw in "arguments" like : 'everyone can see', or 'trivially false', etc. If we want to exchange papers, then we need a paper to begin with. Applying your method, such as "trivially false" I can contend, for example, that your statement: "so the universe has always existed. There is not beginning" is trivially false. Everyone knows that the universe started with the Big Bang, so it did have a beginning. Therefore you need to deliver a paper that would state - and prove - the opposite. Now, if the universe had a beginning, then the question remains what caused it. Whatever the cause was or is, has to be beyond our universe. Okay. So again, please elaborate how and why the Kalam argument refutes the definition I referred to: "The Kalām cosmological argument: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence." (Wikipedia)

A quote from the thread-starting post: "To refute the existence of God, I must first define what I mean by God." In the post he admits that the basis of his premise is his own definition, then adds his assumption that "most theists could agree with this basic definition". However, as I explained, that assumption is definitely false, and merely subjective. Since you mentioned Kalām and Aquinas arguments - as an attempt to refute my point - then you need to elaborate how those arguments support the thread-starter's premise and how they contradict the definition I referred to. Okay - first let's get this straight, I am equally uninterested in anyone's zeal and bias towards either theism or atheism. I am wondering if anyone at all is capable and willing to discuss a god-related argument in a rational and calm manner, without getting cold sweat in advance about the outcome - if any. (I personally don't care either way) Second, it is your frigging assumption that anyone wants to make up a "magical being" that is beyond any rule. Third, your assumption that "All that is known to exist, exists within space-time" is an equally huge assumption and begs the obvious question what caused time and space to come into existence. (Since as we know they did have a beginning.)

Yes, it was. [/sarcasm] One can contemplate on the "helpfulness" of a topic where the chosen premise is a blatantly false statement, and when I explain in detail that the argument is flawed and why, all I receive in reply is two more false statements.

No, it isn't. Yes, they do.

At first sight your argument sounded convincing, (and for an agnostic point of view, compelling) but then I realised that the definition of 'God' that you chose for your premise: "the origin of all that exists" is not exactly how the concept is normally defined. The secular definition given by Merriam Webster is "the supreme or ultimate reality". If 'God' is the ultimate reality then we can assume that all other realities, including of our universe as it is defined by space, time and matter, are somehow part of, caused by and/or dependent on this ultimate reality. The religious concept of 'God' is usually defined as an immaterial and eternal being that exists beyond space and time (that ever was and ever will be), and that which is uncaused and uncreated; whereas our physical universe did have a beginning (hence it has to have a cause): it started to exist when space and time began to exist (Big Bang). From this the theists infer that our universe was created by this purely non-physical and omnipotent mind 'God'. I am wondering how could you arrive at the same conclusion from this premise? Very well put. What I would like to add: in my view the science or religion dichotomy may as well be a false dichotomy. The virtue of science - and of scientists - is not defeated if we admit that rational thought of a philosopher can also lead to valid truths. What both science and philosophy share in their methods is that both are domains relying on our rational faculties. This is probably why scientists often make philosophical statements as to the non-existence of a deity with reference to certain scientific discoveries. If so, then science somehow needs to deal with those philosophical implications that points toward the opposite direction. For example, philosophers of science often argue that science would be pointless without our assuming an ultimate organising mind behind the order of the universe.