Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Delicate]

An argument from tradition says "X is traditional, therefore x is true."

I'm saying "The definition of God as non-contingent existed long before the arguments. Therefore the definition of God was not invented to support these arguments."

Well, given that I never once suggested that the definition of god was created specifically to defend that argument, I guess maybe the facepalm wasn't in order. The issue is that simply giving a definition doesn't prove what you're saying; the question under discussion is one of the nature of "uncaused" things, whether god could be one, whether that category even exists in reality, and so on. Your answer, simply defining god as uncaused, is not only criminally lazy, it also doesn't help; you can't demonstrate the efficacy of Kalam through fiat assertion of its premises.

Furthermore, you're creating a bit of a false dichotomy there, since the god definition you're using isn't the only god definition available to us when we're discussing creation issues, and so we don't need to take it as a given that the god you're defining is the one we need to be talking about; you are effectively picking and choosing from a range of different god definitions, and you've just so happened to come up with the one that nullifies a prominent objection to the argument we're having. The "uncreated god" definition might not have originated with you, but that doesn't mean you aren't using it to define your way around problems, either.

How in the world does the argument from tradition fallacy come into play here?

My point is that the age and popularity of a definition still doesn't make it true... which is the thing I'm pointing out you still haven't done.

I'm not saying the definition of God is true. I don't think it even matters. You could replace God is any other word you prefer.

You don't think the definition of one of the key words in this discussion matter? Then why bother making the argument you did at all, if you aren't attached to that definition?

These words come from your own post. They constitute among the most compelling arguments you've presented so far.

I didn't say it as dishonest, I said it was lazy. And it is, in that it's guilty of the same sort of poor argumentation that Kalam itself is guilty of, and you too, in fact, when you define god as uncreated because that's how you want to define him. The point is that you can't define your way to a good argument; the "begins to exist" language has no better justification than the original cosmological premise did.

You're clearly saying that I define God as uncreated because that's how I want to define him.

And as I have shown, that's clearly false.