Hi Best
I certainly have never said anything like that and don't have that attitude
Yes, you have. You were wondering why certain world class Christian biologists accepted evolution, and suggested it was because they didn't really understand it. Please don't make me go back and quote that bit at you again.
Hi Ellie. Welcome back. I've missed you. I didn't say I wouldn't talk to you. Only that I wouldn't respond to abuse. I'm surprised you waited so long to come back
Awww...well, it's always nice to be missed. I was aware that you were back on the thread, but real life prevented me getting involved before now.
I don't accept that using a swear word is akin to abusing you, but if it really bothers you that much, fine. When I talk to you, I shall not swear.
I agree with much of your assessment of the three arguments and find your refutations to be well-thought out and logically sound. I feel that if I were an atheist, this is precisely the case I would make against the existence God
And there's your first mistake. My objections to your arguments do not "disprove" god, and are not meant to. They just show that your "evidences" are logically unsound. And, the objections I'm making are NOT because I am an atheist, they are because they are wrong.
I'll just make a few comments on parts I disagree with given my worldview
Fine. But another mistake. Your worldview and my worldview should be irrelevant to the matter entirely. As we have previously agreed, true is true is true (my old lecturer, remember?). Logic begins with a premise that we must both accept to be true if the argument is to be considered logically sound in any meaningful way. If I can show that your premise is flawed then your argument must fail. (Yes, I know that logic is more complicated than this but I'm not sure we really need to get into that right now).
I can show that in all three cases, either that your initial premise is flawed, or that you've made an unwarranted an illogical assumption somewhere along the way.
I know it doesn't always seem that way 
, but we do in fact occupy the same world, Best. What's true for you is true for me.
So....
Objections to Kalam
There is evidence that even a multi-verse would require an absolute beginning
What's that got to do with anything. You are amazingly obsessed with the multiverse and I'm not sure why. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my objection to your argument - you are leapfrogging head.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
By everything here you mean everything we can experience and see. Yes? I agree. That's our general, everyday experience of how the universe works.
But.....again, where do we place the beginning of anything? We agree that everything we see is a reconfiguration of matter - so is that what you're saying about the universe? If not, then this is an equivocation - a logical fallacy of not comparing like with like.
To be logically sound, you have to say...
Everything that begins to exist is a reconfiguration of existing matter
The universe began to exist
The universe is therefore a reconfiguration of existing matter
Are you saying that, then? If not - why not? If you're not saying that, then why are you comparing two things that are manifestly NOT alike?
Of course, you are also failing to take into account QM, which is where a physicist would take issue with you. Modern science strongly suggests that "Everything that begins to exist is a reconfiguration of existing matter" since that simply does not appear to be the case in the sub-atomic arena.
Most things that begin to exist DO have a cause, that's why science spends so much time looking for causes, as you have rightly pointed out. But it's absolutely NOT true to use the term "Everything", because QM suggests otherwise. And if we have anything within our natural universe that does not require a cause, then you cannot continue with your argument because your premise is not just flawed, it's wrong.
I'll be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics but I just don't find it reasonable or credible to deny the law of causality upon which all science is based
Well, you be the first to admit that, and I'll be the second - but it doesn't matter. The very fact that plausible models & equations can be constructed by experts to suggest this possibility means exactly that - that it's a possibility. So your premise is just wrong - you would need to show that it's impossible to continue. And you can't. You can't even show that it's likely to be true.
And it's not a God-of-the-gaps situation. You are advancing an Argument from Ignorance (or Personal Incredulity, which seems a nicer way to put it). You are saying that you, personally, cannot understand how anything can violate cause and effect so you're going to proceed on the assumption that QM doesn't. You're wrong to do that and it's bad, bad logic to try.
What mystery is that? Something must be eternal and science shows it's not the universe. To invoke trillions of unseen, unknown, untestable universes to avoid one God violates Occam's Razor so I go with the simpler of the two hypotheses
Something must be eternal? Why? What logic gets you there? And I think Icbineg (a physicist, don't forget) quite clearly explained to both of us that the universe can be (and probably is) infinite.
Again with the multiverse? What's that got to do with anything? And, by the way, it doesn't violate Occam's Razar to postulate a more complicated solution if that's what the observations suggest. "All things being equal, the simplEST explanation tends to be correct". This doesn't mean that the most simple explanation possible is always going to be correct no matter what.
Quote-mining is to take someone out of context and to misrepresent their actual intent. Since I did not do that, it cannot be classified as quote-mining and frankly, I resent the implication. Remember that the one making the claim bears the burden of proof
Well, you're certainly not averse to a little quote-mining, as we saw in the previous thread. Whether that was deliberate on your part or you just didn't check your sources properly - either way, it's bad form.
But - you know what? In this instance, you're right. You weren't quote mining - they really said what they said, and meant what you say they meant.
But really - it's a bit ridiculous, don't you think, to dredge up Elizabethan scientists (if we can call them that) to support your claims. They'd have agreed with you wholeheartedly, I'm certain - BECAUSE they lived before modern physics. Find me a modern physicist that says the same thing and I'll look into it. The fact that you've relied on people who lived 500 odd years ago suggests to me that you haven't found anyone more recent - and that's a bit of a problem, isn't it?
Have exhausted myself. I'll address the rest either later or tomorrow.