"It must be you who is missing the point. Changeless means that something isn't undergoing any change, it is not defined as not being able to undergo change. If God is in a changeless state, then He is not undergoing any forms of change. IF God changes, then He is undergoing change and is no longer changeless."

You said god is changeless, yet you already have shown that it has changed, so is it really changeless?

"Everything that you've said here is completely irrelevant. Numbers are still immaterial and do still exist regardless of."

Numbers ARE conceptual, are you stating that your god is also conceptual?

"God would have value that corresponds to reality, namely, having created it."

Ho, what value then, what property of our physical reality does your god exist in? Mass? Energy? Time? Concepts? Language? I can see a definite argument that god exists as a concept and in language, but it has yet to be demonstrated that this synthetic proposition corresponds to reality, aside from your bald assertion that it created it. You cannot prove the existence of a thing by asserting that it does something, recognizing that that something exists, and then merely asserting that its existence is thus verified. Otherwise I could simply assert and define that gremlins break cars, recognize that there are indeed broken cars, and then assert that the existence of gremlins is thus verified by definition. It is, quite simply, and ad hoc rationalization.

"Temporality is not required to hold existence."

Can you demonstrate this as a fact?

"Existence can be held temporally or timelessly. Take numbers, for example."

Bad example, there was a time when the entire concept of "numbers" did not exist.

"Numbers do not endure through time, yet they still exist."

The concept of "numbers" did have a beginning. Your platonic view of the concept of "numbers" is very disingenuous, as it treats numbers as if they are immaterial timeless objects. They aren't. If there were such abstract mathematical objects, they would have to necessarily exist outside of spacetime, which would mean that we would not be able to apprehend them. However, the opposite appears to be true, all of these concepts exist solely within spacetime as far as we know, meaning that they are not the platonic objects that you treat them as. A number is a specified value, without a mind to specify it, the concept would appear to have no meaning or value whatsoever.

"Wrong. Even if humans didn't exist, there would still be eight planets in our solar system. Your are conflating the physical representation of a quantity (number), with the actual quantity (number)."

Once again, you are treating them as platonic objects, which makes no sense. If humans didn't exist, the number eight(or is it nine) would not exist, and the quantity(which is also a concept) wouldn't be specified.

"Not existing within reality simply means not existing within reality. It is up to you to demonstrate that if something does not exist within reality, that it is therefore non-existent (which, by the way, is a non-sequitur fallacy because it does not logically follow that because something does not exist in reality therefore it is completely non-existent)."

If something does not exist in reality, then it is unreal, meaning it is imaginary or fictitious.

"Numbers."

Appear to ONLY exist in physical reality.

"And this time don't conflate numbers with physical representations of numbers (like the symbol "8", or the word "eight"). Numbers are immaterial (meaning they are not physical and so do not exist within physical reality), but can describe physical reality."

Aha, so you claim that numbers transcend reality, demonstrate that outside a physical reality that numbers exist.

"Yes I am. All contemporary cosmogonic evidence is to the contrary."

Demonstrate that it is, indeed, impossible.

"Secondarily, you would need to demonstrate that another form of spacetime exists separate from ours if you're going to assert such."

I didn't assert anything, I asked if you denied the possibility, you made a positive claim.

"Actually, you have it backwards, as I've already demonstrated in the very comment you're attempting to deconstruct. Numbers (quantity) is an immaterial concept which exists separate from physical reality but can describe physical reality."

You have just asserted that numbers exist independent of what they represent, and would exist even if there were nothing for the concept to apply to at all, which is a really strange assertion. You are still treating them as if they are platonic objects that exist outside of reality, which cannot be demonstrated in the least, they appear to ONLY exist in reality.

"You're pretty much arguing that without humans, there would not be eight planets and one sun in our solar system."

Without a being capable of specifying a quantity, it literally loses all meaning, and it would simply be unspecified.

"You are sadly mistaken. Quantity (which is what is meant by "numbers") exist independently of human minds, which created physical representations of these quantities. In a Universe devoid of minds, there would still be 500 billion stars in our galaxy; it would not be an unspecified number of stars. However, there would be nobody around to ascribe a physical representation to the quantity "500 billion", but it would still be "500 billion". The term "500 billion" is the physical representation of the immaterial quantity of stars existing in our galaxy."

In every single supposed argument you make, quantity is SOLELY dependent on something to quantify, so in a situation where there can be to quantity it doesn't exist.

"Demonstrate that consciousness requires active thought. Funnily enough, you can't do it, and it's known as the "hard problem of consciousness". I could just as easily say that active thought requires consciousness, and you would be unable to objectively prove that wrong. Also, the observation of consciousness within time does not somehow limit it only to temporality. Just because something is observed to happen within time does not automatically exempt it from existing outside of time. You'd have to demonstrate that, and the oft-refuted contention that "I've never seen a timeless mind" isn't a refutation."

Oh, now it is actually worse than that. You have literally asserted that an immaterial mind(which cannot be demonstrated) can think(a process that requires both change and energetic/physical interaction) outside of time. Oh, wow, your claims are getting wilder by the minute.

"Wrong, wrong, and yet again, wrong. "Omnipotent" is defined as being able to do everything that is logically capable of being done. God cannot create a square circle, and that does not somehow negate God as omnipotent, because the logically impossible cannot be done by anyone ever."

After literally looking this up in about FIVE different dictionaries, you appear to be using a definition that isn't in any of them, they all seem to agree that it means unlimited power.

"Yet another wrong statement. "Omniscience" is holding all possible knowledge. If there wasn't an unlimited amount of knowledge in existence, then you're arguing that any being which did hold all the possible knowledge would not be omniscient. This is simply wrong, said being would definitely be defined as omniscient."

Same as above, you seem to be redefining these to suit your own purposes.

"You like to redefine your terms in an attempt to bolster your argument. In some senses, this is the fallacy of equivocation."

Oh, the irony, stop before you give me heavy-metal poisoning.

""Eternal" means "ceaseless existence" or never not-existing. This is not synonymous with non-existence, which is never existing. If something was non-existent, then it couldn't be eternal."

If something exists ceaselessly, then it exists forever, making it infinite by definition.

"What is really happening here is you are consistently committing the fallacy of equivocation by redefining words to mean what they really don't mean in an attempt to bolster your argument. This entire comment is riddled with non-sequiturs, equivocation, and baseless assertions."

Oh, yes, because YOU haven't made ANY bald assertions whatsoever. That was sarcasm in case you missed it, and the dictionary seems to be on MY side in this matter.

"The reason the vacuum energy is under constant fluctuation is because the energy level of that vacuum energy is, as well, in constant flux due to the coming-into-being of the virtual particles and their anti-particle pairs."

A good example of material causality, perhaps the universe has a material cause instead of an efficient one, as we have much better examples of material than efficient causality.