A pantheistic argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh no no no no, you misunderstand, red is unicorn, nothing else....so, if to be a believer in fairy tales you mean "to believe in red" then I am a believer in fairy tales but if by believer in fairy tales you mean "believes in magical beasties" then I am not [...]

In that case we agree with the validity of the argument. So I don't see where there's a misunderstanding. But then I don't see why you don't also recognize the logic that if god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god. I don't see why you decide to disagree in that case when the logic is still clearly tautologically valid.

LOL, the troubles with identity that pantheism has are only marginally apparent in your argument, granted. Everything is god, collectively, but you probably wouldn't consider yourself god. It's a part/whole relationship thing. Mereological ontological argument stuff.

Well by the universe I mean "all of absolutely everything that exists". So if god is the universe then that means god is "all of absolutely everything that exists". I'm taking the meaning of "god" and defining it as "the universe" I'm not taking the meaning of "the universe" and defining it as "god". That's the difference, and that's what you seemed to be confusing.

The general criticism of ontological arguments for the existence of a god is that they beg the question Doubt,

I'm not saying that god exists. I'm saying that if god is something that we already know exists - the universe - then god exists.

Of course this begs the question of the soundness of the argument, but as I have said, I'm trying to demonstrate the validity of the argument, not the soundness.

[...]Which is why I keep sking you why I (a reasonable person and atheist)[...]

Because I'm in no way asking you to agree with the premise and I'm not arguing that it is sound. I'm arguing that my argument is valid, I'm not arguing that it is sound: and yet when I begin to express the validity of the argument, after a while you fall back on questioning its soundness again. You don't seem to succeed at actually demonstrating that it is invalid. And I'm only expecting my argument to be valid..

(I did use the same argument structure to conclude that my plate was god btw, which conflicts with your notion that the universe is god, can we both be correct?

(I'll edit my post here when I see where you posted that).

Edited:

I missed this post of yours that you posted a lot earlier, apologies:

[An argument that you claim to be valid but you don't claim that it is sound:]Assume that there is one god, and that this god is the waffliest possible thing
My plate has more waffles than any other plate, it is in fact made of waffles with waffles piled on top
Therefore my plate is god.

This argument is invalid because you didn't imply that there couldn't be something else more waffley than a plate. But I'll change "waffiliest possible thing" to "waffiliest possible plate" for the sake of argument. Then it would be logically valid that your plate is god because it is the waffiliest possible plate and god is the waffiliest possible plate.

You then would have made a logically valid argument. The soundness is irrelevant since it was supposed to be a relevant analogy to my argument and my argument's purpose was validity not soundness.

We both assumed that there was a god in our premise, and gave a definition for what it was, which is a very sneaky way of loading the premise with everything you hope to establish about a god in the first place,

This is still irrelevant to the validity of my argument, again.