And this is what you keep doing.  Insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong without actually being able to explain why.  It is quite obnoxious.  And this is probably why your interactions with everyone are so testy.

Your conclusion is absolutely that there is a god.  I quoted you on that twice now since you don't seem to know your own argument as well as I do.  So that part of my post is 100% demonstrable correct.  

Here is a definition of validity from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy.   

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid."

If you presented an argument that ends in god, but (and I'll quote you again) " the deductive Cosmological argument ends at the necessary being" than your argument is clearly invalid, because it does not reach the conclusion.  You actually could quite easily fix this problem by changing the conclusion, but apparently you'd rather insist that you're correct than to make a small adjustment.

Perhaps I simply don't possess your superior logical acumen, but I fail to see how anything I said was wrong. I would suggest you practice some epistemological modesty and brush up on logic 101.

Lol.  While it's always nice to have confirmation, the nice thing about deductive logic is that it has certain rules to it.  I know the rules, so I know that I'm correct.

But, since you were nice enough to confirm it, I'll forgive your crack about the future Super Bowl champion New York Jets from before.

As another silent observer I second this.

I've stated multiple times the argument ends at a necessary being in the thread, only for some people to ask where god is in the picture. So then I used Aquinas' argument which includes God in one argument.

It changes nothing at all about the formal corectness of the argument. When I present an argument that stops at God, it stops at God, when I present one that stops at a necessary being and uses a second argument to reach God I'm doing just that.

Evry singly time I actually take time to try and explain what I'm trying to do or what a certain philosopher does, you turn it against my argument in a way that makes no sense. Then you proceed to continuously claim I make my argument difficult.

I've explained everything six times over now. if you can't be bothered to go back, read the Standford Encyclopedia page on the Cosmological Argument, which presents a nice range of versions you can contend yourself with.

I'm tired of you people turning my arguments in circles and claiming they're not sound. You make the damm circles.

Trust me, I'd happily discuss this in person. I can't help it people don't get the entire argument (now spread out over more then 20 pages) and keep turning the argument back on itself.

Dude, I've clearly been talking about an argument that ends in god and is deductive.   Ive quoted it twice so we know we are both talking about the same argument. I made sure to ask if it is deductive.  I've asked you several times to define what you mean by god, which you have yet to do.  I've asked you several times to explain how you reach the conclusion from your final premise, which you've failed to do. I made it ABUNDANTLY clear what argument I'm referring to.  And despite that, you're talking about, as far as I can tell, three separate arguments in this post.  

I've been trying my hardest to be polite, but I'm really getting kind of annoyed with your insistence than anyone who disagrees is either too dumb to understand your brilliance, or is deliberately trying to be dishonest.  If you are making claims that I am either wrong or dishonest, explain it.  Otherwise, stop it. It's childish. 

That is the position I am taking as an Atheist... In this thread.

My position is not indoctrinated, all I ask for is evidence for Theists to backup their claims, that is it, that is rational, that is logical.

I think you are making it out to be something it's not.
Atheism isn't a belief or disbelief in God, it is the default position.

None of which results in proving/disproving God exists.

Just because there is/isn't life on another planet doesn't mean that life on THIS planet was created by your God, you need to judge each claim on it's own basis.

Many Theists aren't actually church-going or practicing. But we still lump them in as Theists because of their convictions.

Atheism is and I quote: Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of Deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
So yes, I would also class a pig as an Atheist... Because the term Atheism isn't just a binary label that is only applicable to those who disbelieve in a deity, but also includes those with zero belief as the entire concept is alien to them.

There are simply many different types of Atheists.

I agree.

You are entirely correct.
The argument itself can be valid... But without empirical evidence to backup the argument... The result will be rendered irrelevant as we cannot ascertain it's truth.

For you to have an appropriate answer for that question, you will need an answer backed by evidence.
And it is okay to say "I don't know!"

With that in mind... There are particles which pop in and out of our reality, which means that something like the Big Bang could have done the same? (Although no evidence for that.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Science will keep trying to find the answer though, whilst the Bible continues to stick to false anti-scientific claims like the Earth forming before the Sun.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors#Planetary_formation

You gave me the definition of atheism, but what we're really discussing is the definition of atheist, and that one letter change makes a big difference.

Pretty much any definition of atheist I've seen either explicitly or implicitly limits it to people.  If you'd like to suggest we expand the definition to include animals like pigs, I would challenge you to find a way to identify what pigs think about the proposition of a god.  I would agree that intuitively it seems  almost certain that pigs do not believe in a god, but I don't think you'd be able to demonstrate that.

I'd say for the labels of atheist or theist to be meaningful, it has to refer to something that has the capability of belief.  Otherwise, it's like saying, my baby is not Antarctica. I mean, sure it's technically a true statement, but it's also kind of pointless.

As for the second part, while you're right that an argument could be valid in structure, but have false premises, in this case the argument presented (look at page 55 I think) is not only unsound (premises are not true) but is also invalid.  For this argument, I wouldn't even bother assessing the truth of the premises, because even if the premises were all true, the conclusion would not be.  

An Atheist is someone who adheres to the principles of Atheism.
Just like a Theist adheres to the principles of Theism.

They are part and parcel of the same construct.

Atheism is the position. Atheist is the individual that adheres to said position.
Anyone who doesn't believe in a deity, be it for lack of cognitive capability, lack of evidence to convince them otherwise, or they just lack the care factor... Falls under that heading.

Thus we do not need to demonstrate what pigs think, they don't tend to have the ability to think like we do about philosophical issues. (Not to mention brain activity scans can tell us allot anyway about what the brain is doing anyway.)

Don't get me wrong, I agree.
But if someone is presenting an argument, then they need to present empirical evidence to go with said argument, otherwise we can just label it as "fake news" essentially, regardless of how compelling their argument is.

If there's no hell, then what's the point of believing and baptizing and all that tat anyway? If there's no hell, does that mean there's no heaven either?