The absolute absurdity of God

[SteveII]

A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.

This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.

Space-time itself kinda checks all of those attributes...
Maybe a few of those have been added due to some anthropomorphism and maybe some are just plain wrong.... then, space-time can check all the required attributes.

Space-time is uncaused.... or rather can be uncaused, for all we know. We only have access to the space-time within our Universe... there might be much more of it outside.
Space-time can be beginningless. Even within our Universe, there is no preferred spatial coordinate. There seems to be a preferred temporal one, but maybe the space-time out of our Universe is beginningless.
Space-time is not changeless. It changes a bit in the presence of mass - that's general relativity for you.
Space-time is timeless. Things in space-time move with time and have a temporal coordinate. The space-time itself is not subject to its own coordinate system.
Space-time is immaterial.... for the most part. It does tend to generate particles, though...
Space-time is enormously powerful. It might be infinite and, in a few locations, it generates both negative and positive energy particles and these should be allowed to be as great or as small as they can be, given that the negative offsets the positive, so that, overall, everything remains neutral.
Space-time is not personal. I'd classify it as very impersonal. It just happens to have the capacity to generate persons, after a very long time of evolution of those particles that it generates.

An infinite space-time that very sparsely produces Universes where stars can form, planets, life... intelligent life...
Everything after the initial spark of particles in our Universe can be accounted for by physics. Anything prior needs some guesswork. But the known direction has been from a disordered state to a more ordered one, at the expense of greater disorder somewhere else - that's the second law of thermodynamics for you.
Inductively, this is as valid as your own argument... perhaps even more valid, as it presents itself as an extension to the known Universe, while your version presents an altogether separate thing.

That is all a nice theory (even though not the current preferred theory). What is the explanation of 'spacetime'? A brute fact? What metaphysics are you using to justify dismissing all causal principles for something that does not exist necessarily?  Why does the universe seem to have a beginning and is heading toward heat death? An past infinite series of events is logically impossible. My 'God conclusion' looks conservative compared to all the metaphysical extravagance your theory has. 

The point is that I have reasons to believe in God that are rational and can be defended and are a better explanation that what you can come up with. I am not saying you are wrong, just that my version is superior because it does not require leaps in logic and a whole bunch of "it could that...and for all we know". Any charge that my beliefs are irrational (notice I did not say wrong), is simply not the case.