Which Comes First?

[Ryft]

To be more accurate, it is the lack of scientific evidence that is my final reason not to believe.

Therefore, my statement is proven correct, that your rejection of God was actually not "based on a scientific assesment of the available data." It was based on your exploration of scientific evidence for God and finding none. Question: By what reasoning did you to think God has spatio-temporal properties?

Moreover, we now have what is perhaps a more interesting revelation from you here. Am I to understand that you will believe a proposition only when there is scientific evidence for it? Are you aware of the rock and hard place you're wedging yourself into, with a falsehood on one side and a fallacy on the other? Mull it over in your mind.

I don't claim to fully know the nature of the universe but believe that there is not any sufficient reason to think there is anything besides the natural world

Would you say that nothing exists unless it has spatio-temporal properties? That existence is defined in empirical terms? I ask this because, if you think it is possible for something without spatio-temporal properties to exist, then what evidence for its existence would you expect to find? Surely not empirical evidence (given its lack of spatio-temporal properties).

Actus purus, Fr0d0's model (however you would categorize it), and the TAG all seem to be arguments that place God somewhere untouchable by science ...

This assumes that the arguments of Aquinas and Van Til were produced from whole cloth as though in response to empirical challenges (q.v. "how convenient"), which is invalidated by evidence to the contrary, for their arguments were produced from the Christian scriptures. That is to say, their arguments articulate and explore what God has revealed about himself millennia ago. I know you disagree that God exists, much less did he reveal anything about himself, but that is absolutely irrelevant to the beliefs of Aquinas and Van Til or where their arguments came from. If you want to characterize their arguments, please do so with accuracy rather than anachronisms.