If you are a conceptualist you must be an idealist too.

Consult any reference work on epistemology if you think that conceptualism implies idealism.

BH: To say that "there is no gravity" is either misleading or false. [..] To say that "science does not agree with itself" is either misleading or false.

GK:  modern science has disagreements in it

That's a more accurate statement.

GK: The unmoved mover, or something created the elaborate infrastructure of physical laws to serve as its causal framework.  One need only go back further to mind this "god."

1) It's not a god, as that word is used by speakers of English.
2) The Big Bang is not a candidate for the causal agent of the infrastructure of physical laws -- which is why I said the Big Bang is not analogous to a cosmological first cause.

GK What does this [modal realism] have to do with the unmoved mover which could create any and all universes?

For an introduction to modal realism, see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&ref=sciam

BH: One description of a Dog is an animal with fur and four legs. Cats meet this description, but that doesn't make them dogs.

GK: I think you mean that this description of god is overly broad.  My response is: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, etc., it's a duck.

The problem is that when you look up "duck" in a reference work, it describes the gait, appearance, and sound of ducks. Ducks and only ducks match this description. But when you look up "god" in a reference work, they give a description that is different from yours. Your use of the English word "god" simply does not conform with the use of native speakers of the language.

All of your provocative statements about "god" and "religion" become uninteresting truisms if you instead use the terms "gk-god" and "gk-religion" and then give your idiosyncratic definitions of those terms. If you did so, the alleged semantic intent of your original assertion would be unchanged. But would you have the nerve to post such uninteresting truisms is they were so readily identifiable as such?  I doubt it.

BH: We indeed now know that the sun is not supernatural. But they thought it was a personal agency.

GK: Personal agency does not mean supernatural.

Personal agency that is not reducible to non-volitional physical laws is indeed the definition of supernaturality.

GK: I don't consider god supernatural at all.  One exception makes your statement wrong.

You're confusing an empirical question (does anything exist that satisfies the English definition of "god"/"supernatural"?) with a lexicographic question (what is the English definition of "god"/"supernatural"?).

BH: are you really willing to construe anything as a 'god' just for more chances to reprise that role? Again, this behavior suggests a desire for attention.

GK: What attention?   I write to you and my son.

On lpc-candidates you wrote that causality is the god of science.

GK: Now that statement is ad Hominem.

No, I didn't say your statement is false because it is an attention-getting device. In speculating about your motivation I'm merely trying to explain an observable fact, viz. that Gary Kirkland made a statement that it turns out he can't defend.

GK: A dictionary is someone's opinion, and may represent common, but mistaken views.

It's simply not possible that Gary Kirkland can be correct about the connotation of the English word "god", while essentially all other speakers of English are wrong. That's the nature of lexicography.

GK: My religion does not assert that a supernatural god exists, and you have indicate you do not believe in a supernatural god.  Religion is putting one's beliefs into practice. 

Not only do you not understand the connotation of the English word "god", you also do not understand the meaning of "religion" either.  Oh Gary, you're sooooooooo provocative, how you're able to tell atheists that they have a "god" and a "religion". My what a deep thinker you are. How insightful. How iconoclastic.

Except when we look at your idiosyncratic definitions of "god" and "religion", your statements are boring truisms dressed up as provocative claims.

BH: Scientific naturalism denies that any such gods exist

GK: They can deny it tell the cows come home.  Their behavior belies their denials.

Only in Kirklandese. Not in English.

BH: a fact is a synthetic proposition that is demonstrably true.

GK: Not if I do not accept the demonstration or reject the premise the demonstration is supposed to show. 

You misunderstand what is meant in epistemology by "demonstrably".

GK: See curved space verses gravity.

You're confusing theoretical interpretation with demonstrable fact. The facts I listed are demonstrable and verifiable assertions about what certain communities say, and those communities can be interrogated to arbitrary length about their language use.