OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[genkaus]

Not the Kalam bullshit again.

The presuppositions of the atheistic position is that it is at least empirically, impossible to prove god exists and if-so facto (given atheist tend to be strict empiricalists) then god must not exist

Incorrect. Atheists are perfectly willing to accept empirical proof for god. It's just that there has been none.

Disregarding all preconcieved notions we can deductively prove God without Appealing to Biblical authority.

Take care that you do that.

1. (x) (Bx -> Cx)
2. Bu
3. Cu

Where B = begins to exist; c = cause, u = universe.
Premise one
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Premise Two
The Universe began to exist
Therefore,
The Universe has a cause.
Regarding premise 1:
It seems rather intuitive. It is confirmed by virtually every area of our sense experience. It is a axiom at best.Even quantum fluctuations, which many suppose to be uncaused, are causally conditioned in that they depend on the existence of a pre-existing quantum vacuum.

Is this you disregarding preconceived notions? Intuition is the very basis for pre-conception. Your axiom is rejected until proven and an axiom is not proof.

David Oderberg argues:

We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something.

And what he apparently fails to understand is that the principle of causation itself is temporal in nature. The only way in which there can be a cause of the universe is if there is a "time" before the beginning of the universe. That is, time existed before and after the universe and at some point in that time when the universe began. But if time and the universe can only coexist, then there is no such thing as "before" the universe or the "beginning" of the universe and therefore no such this as a cause of the universe.

Regarding Premise two:
"An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist" WLC
If the Universe was infinite along with being temporal because it relates to causes within time, which likewise always existed, then is an infinite temporal regress because it goes into the past forever. The universe must be explained this way in order to avoid an absolute cosmic beginning to all of space-time reality. It requires there exist an actual infinite within natural reality, because past causes and events have to go on forever into the past by definition given an eternal universe. This perennial philosophical problem is not an issue under theistic accounts which produce arguments for transcendent being like a personal God because traditionally God is considered the only non-contingent or always existing, non-caused cause. The infinite regress is stopped by an ontological commitment to a supernatural personal agent that is the ultimate cause of the existence, and according to the kalam cosmological argument, the beginning of the universe.

Why is an actual infinite a problem at all? Is making a blanket statement like that another example of you letting go of your preconceptions?

And by the way, proving an infinite would be proving a negative. Something is defined as finite once it's boundary or limit has been discovered. Proving that it is infinite is proving that it does not have a boundary - a negative.

All I see here is another theist who talks about letting go of preconceived notions and yet clings to them like a life-jacket. The two arguments you use - everything has a cause and everything is finite - are two of the most common of all preconceived notions. While they may be applicable to most of the things, there is no evidence that they are applicable to everything.