What the God debate is really about

[Angrboda]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Religion is not the only culprit here. Atheist members blur those lines all the time.
Knowledge comes from reason applied to experience. People need first principles in order to gain knowledge. First principles include:

1) There is only one reality.

The counter-factual to this, unless stated as a form of the non-contradiction principle, includes the many worlds hypothesis.

2) Our senses do not deceive us.

The counter-factual of this is not self-refuting. Our senses deceive us. Nothing contradictory there.

3) Sound reasoning yields truths about reality.

The counter-factual of this is paradoxical, but not self-refuting. It's a variant of the liar's paradox.

4) Truths about reality are universal; they do not vary between individuals

Arguably acceptable. (What it means for something to be a truth about reality is important; in the many-worlds hypothesis, this may not hold.)

5) Knowledge requires someone that knows.

Heavily dependent on what you mean by knowledge and someone. Is a valid sentence in a hypothetical interpretive system knowledge?

6) Something that is cannot also not be.

This is not self-refuting under dialetheism.

7) Out of nothing, nothing comes.

There are multiple counter-factuals here, none of them self-refuting.

8) That which does not begin cannot have an end, i.e. infinite regress.

Unclear; "that which did not begin has an end." At the least, it's not obviously self-refuting.

Counterfactuals of the above refute themselves.

False.