Before we can actually test #2 we'd have to consider the parameters of what we are asking.  We need to ask ourselves, "Just what kind of relationship does this God have to its creation"?  For one thing, If God is eternally existing, if God is our 'sum of all that is real' then it means that our universe cannot be completely distinct from his essence.  

Consider the following model of creation:

A craftsmen working on a rocking chair.

In this model, the materials of creation are completely distinct from the essence of the creator.  They have their own existence.  They are in actuality only manipulated by the creator.  The act of creation consists in the creator having a vision inside their own mind that is independent of the manipulated materials, and acting to conform the materials to that vision.

This model cannot be the relationship between God and the universe, because then neither God or the universe can accurately be called 'the sum of all reality' anymore.   You would have two separate eternally existing and yet distinct 'entities.'   We would have to invent a name for the world in which the two exist, and we are back to a regression problem.

In otherwords, it may very well be logically possible that our God exists eternally and that our universe exists eternally, and our God has taken a strong hand in this universe, but then we still aren't talking about the 'sum of all that is real.'  Do this God and universe exist by virtue of being part of a larger universe that itself is 'the sum of all that is real'?  If so, is that 'larger' universe created by a 'higher' God?  

These are logical possibilities which I exclude because eventually everything regresses back to describing a 'sum of all that is real' and it is only THIS final regression that I am describing.  And so, however one works it, we arrive a position where the created thing is not merely manipulated by the creator, but rather its entire existence depends on the creator.  Not just its form, but also its matter, and its energy.  

In this final regress, if we are looking to describe the relationship between God and the universe, and we want to find ways to test this situation, we have to recognize that our relationship to that God is from the POV of being completely WITHIN that God.   Whatever model we employ to understand our relationship with God will have to be consistent with that reality.

Some other things follow from understanding this relationship.  For one thing, direct empirical observation is excluded on principle.  We are within a system that is 'within' God.   It is not possible, therefore it is not rational to expect, to be able to employ senses that can only perceive the system to perceive the sustainer of that system.

Again, its not as though we are standing inside a building, and the creator of the building is standing nearby.  We would be 'within' the creation of the creator, but all the entities involved- you, the creator, the creation, share the same 'level' of reality.  The actual relation to a God that is the sum of all that is real would not allow us even the logical possibility of 'windows' to see out of, because we can only see things that share the same type of reality that we have.

What this means is that the initiative lies completetly on God as to revelation.  He can come down, but we can not go up.  He can come in, but we cannot go out.   The high can descend to the low, but the low cannot ascend to the high.    

So, while it may be possible to conclude or infer the existence of such a being based on our senses, there is little else other than some basic attributes (omnipotent and omniscient relative to us) that we could infer.  Things about nature and character and wishes and will would have to be revealed to us.

This is not a cop out.  This is simply a fact.  Atheists that long for empirical verification of the existence of this being are not properly taking into account the nature of the relationship we must have with this being, if he exists.  Its not reasonable, its not rational, its fundamentally absurd.   Other types of evidences must be sought, whether the atheist likes it or not.

But that is somewhat tangental.

The use of miracle in Christianity (OT and NT) is consistent with this need for authentication.  In Deuteronomy, a test for prophets is laid out (a pretty obvious one, at that).  Not only is epistemology a concern for divine revelation (or those claiming to have it), it enters the Jewish justice system, apparently at variance with the customs in the area.  Accusations against people need to come with multiple witness attestation.

Furthermore, the notion of God becoming incarnate is precisely the type of intervention we

Thanks for reopening the thread, sntjohnny.  I'll go post-by-post with reactions.  There is too much to critique in one sitting.

When I use the terms 'universe' and 'God' I really am speaking of two different approaches to find a word to describe the 'sum of all that is really existing.'  The 'universe' is the typical materialist answer, but the multiverse can be substituted, the primary ingredient in both being the notion that reality is reduced to matter and energy.  I use 'universe' as a shorthand for all that philosophical jujitsu.

Universe = sum total of all that is real, including putative multiverse.  Got it.

We have basically three options for how to understand 'the sum of all that is real.'...

OK.  1) Everything always existed.  2)  God always existed.  3) Neither always existed.  I agree that (3) seems counterintuitive, since there can be no concept of temporality without cyclical events to measure time with.

The problem with #1 is that according to mainstream science, the universe had a beginning.  Some sort of cyclical aspect needs to be introduced in order to justify #1...

You started out nicely, but here you seem to equivocate on the word "universe".  Mainstream science imputes a beginning to the observable universe, not the sum of all that is real.

So, that leaves us with #1 and #2.  Both postulate the existence of something existing eternally.   So, asking a theist "Who created God" is no more substantive than asking an atheist "Who created the universe?"  Both postulate something eternally existing, in one form or another.

The point of asking the question is that #2 violates Occam's Razor.   It is not necessary to posit God, since "all that is real" could just always have existed in some physical form.  Positing God gets you nothing by way of explanation, but it does weaken the position that there was always just God.  What theists who argue kalam seem to want is to open the pandora's lid just a little--to let in just one little God.  Once you crack the lid, anything goes.  :)

Except, as I said, the universe appears to have had a beginning.  If it existed before that, it is unknown and unknowable what the nature of that existence was.  The facts are at variance with the postulate.

Once again, you equivocate on "universe".  There might well be a prior state that is inaccessible to observation from our present universe.

bump.

"We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what scientific cosmology says or seems to suggest."

No.  I think we have a disagreement on how important the matter is in relation to this thread.  The thread is not a discussion about modern cosmology.  The thread merely points to modern cosmology for just one compelling reason to, at the minimum, consider the option that I plan on considering, which is the point of the thread.

"You think that it says the Big Bang was the beginning of "all that is real"--material existence."

Check the BStewart thread and now my compiled argument thread.  Cogito is more than happy to consider our universe 'all that is real.'

"From everything I've read, that is not true."

True or not, it isn't relevant, if only for the reason that modern cosmologists are also willing to discuss 'things' like the multiverse.

If the best you can raise against an apparent beginning of our universe are speculations and de facto agnosticism, I maintain that my point is valid insofar as giving a reader a positive reason for examining the option that I AM arguing for.

"All it says is that you have no license to posit an unnecessary entity. Material existence is a necessary entity. God is not."

That is neither here nor there.  This argument is not about positing God at all. This thread is about describing the nature of relationship I insist our frame of reference MUST have, if there is a God (as Christians define him).  The whole point of the endeavor is to carefully lay out the parameters for reasonable expectations in regards to a variety of things, chief of late, the nature of the evidence we can expect to get.

Then, if that evidence exists, it has nothing to do with positing ANYTHING.  If the evidence exists, we are beyond positing.  The evidence provides a positive basis for inferring the existence of the entity.

Your approach is to assume in advance that we interpret ALL evidence materially when the whole point of the thread's endeavor is to isolate and identify the sort of evidence and/or conditions would suggest otherwise.

As such, it is perfectly consistent for you and the other atheists to conclude that there is no God.  After all, you've assumed that all evidence that could be construed as evidence for him should be interpreted as though it were not for him before you've even begun the investigation.  I can't stop you from doing that.  I can point out though, that we are not on equal footing.  If someone like myself does not wish to join you in that assumption, there is absolutely no reason to think your view is superior to my own.

After all, if I decided to interpret all evidence 'supernaturally,' then obviously all the conclusions would be 'supernatural.'  Garbage in, garbage out.  Such an argument obviously would not go over well with you.  But you seem to think it reasonable to restrict yourself to naturalism on every level, from the very beginning to the very end.

Consistent, perhaps, but not a great argument, in my opinion.