Nitpicking semantics is not a substitute for an argument and making such ignorant assertions doesn't help your case.
> People who believe in the same religion can't even agree on what they believe in.
People generally agree on the fundamentals and argue on edge issues, but even if that were true for argument's sake, it still doesn't invalidate the argument in the very least, because it's independent of religion and is used by theists from a wide spectrum and philosophers alike.
> I think you are confusing "I believe this and it makes sense to me" with "I believe this so this is the way things must be".
That's a petty distortion and a non argument. It describes your own behavior better than anyone else's, a classic case of projection.
> Even if there were something from which our Universe came (directly or indirectly, actively or passively), that existed before it and will exist after it (forever and ever, outside of time and space), even if it were infinite in every way imaginable and unimaginable, it still wouldn't be anything like what you or anyone else call "God/god/gods"
You just made an assertion without any argument or evidence. Not that I made that argument to begin with, but it still reveals a lot about your mindset.
>"principal of causality and the impossibility of infinite regress": Are you seriously arguing that God (which by your definition lies outside of all of our Universal constraints and preconceptions) must exist because of things that only apply in the context of our known Universe?
No, where did I ever make such a claim or put it that way? That's just your usual misrepresentation of the argument, I explained it many times, not going to paraphrase it for the nth time, just scroll up and read it with intellectual honesty.
> Finally, I don't mind being talked down to, but you are not really presenting any arguments that merit your arrogant tone. But, it's all in good fun.
Criticizing obviously deceptive rhetoric is not being arrogant, it's a verifiable claim and is necessary in order to prevent the discussion from being derailed and manipulated.
It's only the "natural logical conclusion" under certain assumptions or axioms. For example, "infinite regress is impossible" is one such assumption – an assumption which isn't any more natural than "a first cause is impossible".
> If so tell me, such that I can write an AI which infinitely paraphrases the same answer until you get it.
Please don't be a jerk.
False. It's neither an assumption nor an axiom, it's a proof by contradiction.
> Please don't be a jerk.
If gently pushing back against deceptive rhetoric derailing the discussion by repeatedly ignoring arguments is classified as being a "jerk' while the offending behavior is not, then it's clearly the judgment that is biased and applied unevenly.
Then try harder I guess, because that's exactly what you are doing.
> I understand the words that you've written; I'm saying that there's no real point in them.
Yet in your supposed 'refutation' you clearly demonstrated that you haven't understood the argument at all, because you outright ignored it and continued paraphrasing already addressed points.
> "The way I define God, this other thing must be true."
False, this is a straw man and proves again that you can't be bothered to understand the argument, because it goes against your narrative. The argument is from the principle of causality and a proof by contradiction of the infinite regress. The first mover, the uncaused cause fits the description of how God describes himself in scripture.
This was in reaction to the popular atheist misrepresentation of what theists supposedly believe.
>But you sound more like you are saying, "This is true, therefore that must be true", which is a very different thing.
That's not even remotely what I said and reflects your poor reading and thinking skills.
> I'm not arguing about your definitions, I'm arguing about the application of your logic to the real Universe.
Yet you failed to propose a single coherent argument and instead resorted to misrepresenting and ignoring arguments in order to engage in the usual atheist rants.
> But, you seem to have "not addressed" my whole "God goo" thing, which completely demolishes any non-strictly-Abrahamic-definition-of-God argument.
Your "God goo thing" is a non argument based on your distortion of the given arguments, it doesn't demolish anything except itself.
> If God split itself into two equal parts, would they still not be "alpha and omega"? But feel free to disengage if you feel there's no value in engaging further. :)
That is the most nonsensical and contrived hypothetical I heard in these discussions and I am actually baffled that you would think that it makes remotely sense. What if you were a frog and had an IQ below 50, would I still need to take you seriously? Hypothetical of course, but feel free to disengage if you feel there's no value in engaging such an absurd question.