Are you going to explain how any god came to be in the first place?

I am going along with the things we humans reveal step by step and don't jump into conclusions and swallow unproven "truths".

see what i mean by this is not gon take both parties anywhere

I'm glad you brought these points up. But first i must ask, why is "God" different than those other things you mentioned like say tooth fairy's? You can't see them, but if you are a child, you teeth still "magically" disappear. 

But let's move to the real question. 

So, the problem here is you are trying to understand the creation of the universe with mental processes from average common sense that were not created for that understanding. The truth here is "nothingness" does not exist. There is no place in the universe where Nothing at all exists. What you perceive as Nothing is a complex network of interactions between particles and opposite particles. Nothing is not your common concept of Nothing (Nothing as you talk about is actually Something) and Nothing is unstable. This instability leads to processes like what we can conjecture is the creation of different universes. Reality would be a collection of matter and non matter that always tends toward the other in a cosmic cycle. There is a good book on this from Doctor Strauss. I forget his first name.

Basically, when trying to understand the universe on a quantic level, you can't apply your notions of everyday common sense. In the quantic level a particle can exist in two places at once (this is fact. It had been proven experimentally). The rules are simply different and we weren't raised to innately understand them. We are equipped to deal with our everyday envyronment. 

The thing is, that doesn't disprove God. It just disproves he was necessary to create the universe. Because, just like the tooth fairy, you can't directly prove it's inexistance. But, you can understand the process and realise that her existance is not very likely.

I see Abath made a very good point aswell. Even if what i just said can't directly be observed (though Strauss makes a strong case for it due to the law of conservation of energy and it fits). Under no means does that lend any credit to the idea that a "God" would've done it. Because God, is the lack on an answer. How did he do it? Magic? Where did he come from? Who created him? Magic? And how many times has something in our reality been explained by magic? 

There is therefore a strong inconsistancy in the God answer.

I have atheist family, but I do not want an atheist president. A secular person of faith is fine, but I just don't see myself voting atheist. I was atheist for about six years, too. My oldest brother is still an atheist. I was not raised in a strict religious home, but I plan to raise my children with religious principles and more so than my parents did me. However, I do not need to know a politicians religous beliefs so an atheist would be possible if they keep it in the closet and support religious people and their freedoms.

That is a funny pov. Why do you think an Atheist wouldn't let you be religious? See, Atheism is not a religion. It's the lack of one. It has no book or commands that say to eradicate others and it's not dangerous in any way (maybe prone to mocking others, but that is freedom of speech is it not?). 

I find it strange how you seem concerned about Religious concerns, but not the needs of atheists. Isn't that beeing parcial?

Ultimately beeing religious or not is not a requirement to be a good polititian. But, i would say an Atheist is way more qualified for the job, just because of his/her's pragmatism.

But, the country that elected Trump doesn't have many quality requirements on who it chooses. Thankfully not every nation sells the office that easily.

To prove this, it would require the premise of God being bound to spacetime. But it says it isn't. What now?

Where is your god then? What is your proof that there is something beyond what is known? People theorize of the beyond but don't claim it exists, or know what it may be. Will your god exist always one step beyond, safe from any evidence against him?

I say "not bound to spacetime". You say "beyond". That doesnt correlate. And when you say "your god" it doesnt correlate either. I believe in a theory of god. However i am not a follower of a christian or any other belief system and therefore not bound to dogmatic scriptures of the past.

There is no "theory of god". A theory has indicators, things that could serve as clues to what is proposed as a theory. The idea of gods is in no way different to that of superheroes, unicorns and the Santa Claus. The idea of gods comes from nobodies who have stepped forward and pointed at things saying: "that was made by gods, that was made by gods, and that thing over there was made by gods!"

The argument about gods existing since the beginning or having existed forever, independent of time, comes from those who have said here that something can't come out of nothing. If the argument is that beyond the possible confines of our Universe, of space-time, and deep beyond the Quantum Realm gods could be there, could exist, and have a conciousness, then that same beyond could harbor rules of nature that could work in such ways that have made what we have here and what we see and have reveald and studied possible.

There is no argument that excludes the existance of nature as precursor of the Universe.

A being or beings who has feelings - love, hate, disappointment of himself (Christian god) - a being that processes ideas, stores information about how things are and should be, and has ideas, a conciousness, etc. where would those things be stored, happen and exist in a vast nothingness? Do you have proof that this is possible? What is the precedent? What is the indicator or clue that this is possible?

You don't have a theory of God. Because you don't know any better. Apart from "indicators" for my little theory, i also said "i believe". You ingnored this little yet important part, only to ask preposterously if i have proof. Well knowing, if had, i wouldn't be writing about this subject in some video games forum only to let boredom pass by. Astrophysicists also don't have proof of a Multiverse, but it is indeed a valid theory scientists seriously consider. Do you know why? This is an answerable question.

Acting as obsessive as you and others are, you show the same behavior as religous people. Obstinate, unwilling to budge from the dogma you have inherited. Just like blind followers of outdated religions you insist to keep staring at old doctrines and withered books with blinders. Understandable. I can't really blame you. There aren't many options to choose from, and those existing don't provide all the answers, all the solutions. The option i have concocted doesn't either. I never claimed that. But i really like it. 

"The idea of gods is in no way different to that of superheroes, unicorns and the Santa Claus. "

You shouldn't project your defintion of God onto others. I know, the general notion of God is being a mystical bearded caucasian man sitting on a big chair between the clouds, one day snapping his finger, mumbling into his beard "let there be light", creating Earth within 24/6, Adam, Lilith, Eve, and so on and so forth. So to say. This image is dominating your mind, and the minds of many, not mine though.

"A being or beings who has feelings - love, hate, disappointment of himself (Christian god) - a being that processes ideas, stores information about how things are and should be, and has ideas, a conciousness, etc. where would those things be stored, happen and exist in a vast nothingness?"

You're doing it again. I repeat, this "nothingness" is a premise you insist on. I for one don't. So you should stop shoving the "nothingness" under my nose like it has to be a part of it all. It doesn't.

I'd say you should get yourself a thorough lecture in "the nature of our universe", "spacetime", "holographic principle/universe" and everthing else. I don't claim to comprehend it all and be able to see into the "beyond". Like i said, if i would, i wouldn't be sitting in my comfy chair, i wouldn't be a mere human. But at least, i am a mere human who tries to understand the world he lives in, instead of shutting my brain off, unwilling to learn and to think. 

And, besides "nothingness", my theory also doesn't include time travelling reptoids/aliens/future humans.

I am, who exists. I am, who is to come.