Agree. T-Thinker's straw-man "god" is unnecessary given the easy availability of and coherence of the Trinitarian metaphysic within Christendom. He'd do better to actually interact with the actual *GOD* of said metaphysic.

Thank you. You've proved my point. Anyone who can shrug off thousands of years of monotheistic wisdom and the ocean of Christian brilliance as simply "no reason" is obviously dug in and not truly seeking...you are just splashing around in the puddle of atheism.
You are no more open minded or rational than the "young earthers". Just the other side of the same coin. No talking or reasoning with you. Your regurgitating factoids that have been spoon fed to you and trying to disguise it as thought.
It may be harder for you than some but please keep trying.
As for me...I'll shake your dust off my boots and not look back.
Thanks again.

Interesting. It seems you're being asked to unjustifiably believe that no "A" is "Non-A" and no "Non-A" is "A" and presumably because neither "A" nor "Non-A" exists. We are apparently supposed to carry on "as-if" the concepts, linguistics, perceptions, and contingent frames of reference are all themselves not also in the mix of that which is far, far wider.

Well, not to worry. If the Non-Theist's straw-man exists, and it does, well then there is that which it is a straw-man of. And so we have come back to where we started: Two differing sets of concepts, linguistics, perceptions, and contingent frames of reference which are themselves also in the mix of that which is far, far wider.

As in: All logical progressions are forced into the lap of the Conscious Observer, whether such is Necessary & All-Subsuming or else Contingent & All-Eliminating, and, therefore, our Non-Theist friends must be sure, again, to reconstruct for us that particular Reference Frame. How uncanny that the Absolute’s Own Reference Frame necessarily sums to Self-Reference and, also, how curious that the Non-Theist to often misses the unavoidable fact that the Absolute houses a fundamental relationship with — not SOME — but ALL frames of reference whether Possible or Actual.

No god or "God" is god or "God".

You're being asked to embrace [god] = [God] for no good reason. http://disq.us/p/1p3pk0i

You're right...but God is God.
Thanks for the help.

Then we agree. Thank you.

Then god isn't god.

I know what I need and I know what I'm searching for.

I'm not offering my personal credibility as a reason to believe anything I say.