Premise 1: Empiricism (i.e. gaining knowledge through experience of physical phenomena) cannot explore or conclude upon that which is not physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Premise 2: By definition, the defining characteristic of God is non-physical.  This is axiomatic (i.e. this premise is true).

Therefore: Empiricism cannot explore or conclude upon God. This is a sound deduction (the conclusion follows from true premises).

That is the crux of my point, and you must refute that exact point to stand a chance at being correct.  I'll give you the rest of your natural life to do so, and give you $1 million if successful.

You forget awfully quickly.  I referenced the exact logical fallacy(ies) you committed with regards to every single point on there.  The fact that I'm a theist and not an atheist should be especially troubling for you, then.

Not a single thing there provides a shred of evidence for God.  Zip, zero, nada.  If you forgot, I can do it all again.  

Edit:  To clarify, it's actually not so much that every point you mention is provably wrong, but rather it is impossible to prove them correct in terms of being proof of God.  You just think it's proof for God, because you say to yourself, "Oh, this looks like it makes sense!"  

It only makes sense to you because you lack the awareness to know that you are unsoundly filling in gaps which cannot be filled by the merit of the arguments you provided.  Logic doesn't work by saying, "I guess this looks good enough."  A sound argument is one that cannot possibly be overturned by any other theoretical or real consideration.  Every point you mention begs that alternative considerations be examined, and unfortunately none of these other considerations are disproved by the arguments you present.

 

Lol Jesus tap-dancing Christ!  

Haha thanks for making it obvious you never read my references.

Lol an electrical transformer...resistance...superconductors.  Please, PLEASE tell me that was a joke.

The problem of induction is about the limits of inductive reasoning, you idiot!

There is no evidence except logical or mathematical. Nothing you've posted is evidence, it's simply your opinion(and it's all very wrong). Just stop.

what happens to YOU. not the universe because thats obvious

Well, first off, nobody knows that there were billions of years...

Evidence suggests that your parents existed to create you, because you see that other children are created from their parents.  If you are a father, you would have witnessed this first hand with the birth of your child(ren).

Here's an analogy I've used previously:

Imagine I bop you on the head and you're knocked unconscious.  While you are in that unconscious state, does the Universe continue to exist?

Suppose you become conscious again, and you seek to answer that very question.  How would you arrive at a conclusion?  One thing you might try is to ask me, the person who bopped you on the head.  I could tell you, "Sure, the Universe continued to exist, because I bopped you on the head, saw you fall unconscious, and was with you the whole time until you woke up."  Sounds pretty legit, but, how do you know I'm telling the truth?  You must now introduce an assumption that I am truthful.

Suppose you tried a different approach.  Suppose you had set up a video camera that was recording you at the time I bopped you on the head, and it was set to record continuously until you woke up.  After waking up, you then check the recording and you see the entire sequence unfold on tape -- i.e. the recording shows me bopping you on the head, shows you falling unconscious, and shows you to be continually unconscious until you wake up.  This, too, sounds pretty legit, but how do you know the recording you're watching isn't the result of some kind of video trickery?  Here, too, you must introduce an assumption that no alterations were made to the recording after you woke up.

Occam's Razor only works with empirical data.  It advises that the best conclusion is that which accounts for all of the data but introduces the fewest assumptions.  Because defining the state of the Universe in the absence of our experience requires introducing assumptions about it, we can simply remove these assumptions and come up with a more sound answer, i.e. we simply don't know what the state of the Universe is like when we don't experience it.  It may not be a practical way to think in all cases, but I believe its hard to argue with the fact that in 100% of cases where the Universe has been affirmed to exist, experience of the Universe was present. And, there have been exactly 0 cases where the Universe has been affirmed to exist in the absence of the experience of it.

Shockingly, I understood this, but it's still inaccurate.  Of course he doesn't realize it, but this is close to an Occam's Razor-type inference based upon all available, pragmatic evidence acquired throughout our life.  It's a perfectly valid conclusion that we can't possibly know whether the Universe does or does not exist in the absence of our experience of it, or some aspect of it.

His mistake is making a definitive conclusion.  He is claiming he knows the Universe doesn't exist in the absence of our experience of it, rather than claiming we can't know, which would be empirically correct.  There is no theoretical way to empirically validate or invalidate the existence of the Universe in the absence of our experience of it.

The universe didn't exist for anyone before they were born. Therefore the universe doesn't exist except for the lifetime of people. The suggestion that the universe exists more than your lifetime is all a made up story that you might have heard about before you were born, but that you have apparently forgotten about since.

 

Here's a question for you:  Since you keep claiming atheism is a religion, can you instead describe what it means to be non-religious?  In other words, what criteria does a person need to meet in order to be considered non-religious, according to you?