Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Esquilax]

I predicted you would still be stuck on the definition thing, and here you are. Stuck on the definition thing.

I don't see you playing a different song on this one, buddy. I'm not going to bother.

For the rest of the readers out there, this is how you know Esquilax is wrong:
-Definitions are about the meanings of words.
-Metaphysics is about the nature of reality.

If you'd made an argument beyond "god is uncaused by definition" you might have had a point there, but I've yet to see you defend your chosen definition beyond merely asserting it. You gotta put more meat on them bones before you can accuse me of just seeing bones.

When someone says a being exists (call it x) which has the set of properties P, they are not making a claim about the meaning of words. They are making a claim about reality, namely "Reality, ie 'the total set of everything that exist,' includes as a member 'entity x with properties P.'"

This is a claim about reality. The question is, does such an entity exist or not? Does the evidence justify belief in the existence of this entity or not? What is the nature of this entity? All metaphysical questions. Don't be a broken record like our friend Esquilax here.

Claims about reality require evidence, which you've yet to provide beyond quoting a definition.

The Kalam argument, for one, remains undefeated.

For an argument to be undefeated it must first be demonstrated to be true, which you've utterly failed to do. It's not my problem that you're incapable or unwilling to properly read the science, and instead wish to misinterpret it toward your own ends, but your delusions regarding unambiguous reportage do not constitute an argument or justification for Kalam. When you add the sort of bluster you habitually use to that criminal lack of understanding, is it any wonder I opted to simply give up? I'll fight ignorance because that can be rectified, but I won't bother with proud, willful stupidity, because I can't fix the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Esqi and others tried to debate it in another thread, and ultimately forfeited. http://atheistforums.org/thread-31474-page-12.html. The discussion runs over quite a few pages, you'll see Esqi's position becomes increasingly farcical before he eventually takes his leave.

It's good that you're proud of your inability to understand scientific concepts: everyone needs something to be proud of, and I get the feeling that for you there's precious little of that, but a surplus of ignorance.