Kalam Cosmological Nonsense

[median]

Just for clarity, I actually defined (roughly) the term "global universe" in the way I did, b/c I see absolutely no reason (and have been presented with absolutely no sound evidence) for thinking that anything non-physical and/or non-energetic exists. More precisely though, I'm not opposed to new things being demonstrated as existing. I just have no reason for thinking anything "supernatural" exists whatever, and have never (not once) been presented with anything close to being sufficient as evidence for such (in spite of the fact that I have been asking theists - and this alleged deity - for such evidence for nearly 20 years - even when I WAS a believer). Therefore, for me, the global universe is (generally) the entirety of all existent things which can be demonstrated (either through primary or secondary analysis).

If a theist wants me to include "God" (whatever that term means) within my definition then he/she will have to provide extraordinary evidence for such a claim. Indeed, I currently hold that the term "God" is incoherent and does not map, and/or refer, to anything in reality. Does the term "Blark Schmarbelfarben" map to anything in reality? I think not. Neither do the terms unicorn, fairy, Santa Claus, chupacabra, etc map to anything real either (or at least we have no good reason for thinking they do). Thus, to put it another way, we have no good reason for thinking anything immaterial exists. We only have experience of the material/energetic. Thus we are unjustified (thus far) in concluding that anything else exists.

p.s. - This idea that "God IS Existence" is just plain absurd. As Lord Privy Seal noted, the attributes theists attribute to their deities are nowhere near as vague and equivocal as such a weak definition implies. This definition puts the term "nature" and the term "God" in an indistinguishable relationship (enter Leibniz!). If God and nature are the same thing then stop calling it God, b/c that term is packed full of useless religious baggage.