Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Esquilax]

I think I've covered everything here. You can continue deny the logical conclusion of Gods inevitable existence if you like. Sure it isn't inevitable that the God who exists is the Christian God of the Trinity, but I have also covered the arguments for that specific faith in God in relation to all the alternatives available including deism. So...

Alright class, are we ready for video time? Old professor Esquilax is gonna play a little movie, and then we're going to have a question and answer session, alright?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf9q1Ukhefw

Now, did we get that? Are we... did we understand?

Your Kalam argument is simple handwaving, at base. You've stated a number of premises that follow on logically from one another, but if you can't show how those premises correspond to physical reality, you can't say that any of them are true. You're effectively defining your god into existence, as though any of that should actually matter.

At no point have you demonstrated that all things require a cause, especially things in a pre-planck time universe where nothing is within our ability to predict. At no point, also, have you demonstrated that things that don't begin to exist can exist. And you certainly haven't gone anywhere toward demonstrating your god. You've just said a bunch of words. Which is fine, I like words... but let's not pretend you've done anything other than play a game with us.

Your assertion of victory is rather funny, but there's something that's been bothering me for a while now; you cheerfully accept that even the argument you're providing doesn't get you to any specific god. At numerous times you say he could be some other thing, some other gender... whatever. And yet your username is sword of christ and you're a christian. Why is that, given that your best argument doesn't get you to the position you're actually in?

More than once you've intimated that the reason is that you want the creator god to be the christian one. But that's in no way logical; why should we take any of your arguments seriously, if you've shown a willingness to just believe whatever you want, regardless of reality?