Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism

[xdrgnh]

Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.

I am aware of no definition of 'natural' which insists that we have total and complete knowledge of what constitutes 'natural'. Is atomic force and gravity supernatural? People used to think so. People used to worship the sun because they thought it was a god. Your assertion implies that science can never progress in understanding the natural world beyond what it knows today, and you have taken to arbitrarily deciding what is, and what is not, natural.

Science has an excellent track record of explaining what was once thought to be supernatural. I see no reason to expect this will change, because 'supernatural' is really just a polite term for 'things we are currently too ignorant to explain naturally'.

You also fail to explain why we should call this gap in our knowledge 'god'. It is just assertions spawning assertions.

The material world and its phenomena- Nature. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature

This is everyone definition of nature it's bound to the material world. I shown that the material world alone is not sufficient to explain why it exists. The cause of the existence of the material world must be non material because non material stuff does not need a cause for existence. Only material stuff needs a cause for existence and once material stuff exists it cannot create no new material stuff because of the laws of physics. We have a lot to learn about the natural world still. However we can only learn about the natural world because we are natural beings or material beings. The difference between worshiping the sun and believe in a Deist G-d is that believing the sun to be something that is not natural has no logical necessity. As I've shown it is logically necessary to believe in a non material thing to explain the existence of material matter because science has shown that material cannot be created out of other material. AKA conservation of mass and energy, momentum ect.

---

Those not scientific evidence which is the kind of evidence I believe most people here are asking for. I gave logical evidence in my OP for a Deist G-d which no one has refuted yet. Scientific evidence is experimental results.

Logic and 'reason(?)' don't constitute scientific evidence? Interesting... I wonder then: what does? Certainly not anything based solidly upon these.

I saw a bunch of nonsense, myself. Maybe I'll refute it later... perhaps when I don't have to leave possibly immediately But then, what's the point of illustrating stupidity as a small child colors a book with a dog intestines?

It wouldn't do to forget 'observation and' from that last statement... someone might get the wrong idea. Something about intersubjectivity, maybe it'll come to you.

Experimental result falls under observation. The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals only empirical evidence while philosophy only deals with logic and reason. What I'm telling you is common knowledge in the philosophy and scientific community.