I think you know the answer to that question. The error you've made is thinking that "God" is a word entirely beyond reason, and it is clearly not. Again, the idea of first principles (e.g., 'God') is not beyond reason. But ascribing specific traits/properties to such first principles is (exercises in such ascription are tantamount to fantasy). That's the distinction. One is within reason. The other is not. We simultaneously comprehend the idea of "creation", yet have absolutely no logical explanation for it. That may be a type of paradox, but the reasoning itself is not contradictory.

That doesn't really add up. You claim God is not beyond reason, but adding traits to the first principle is. If your claims are true, then God can't be added to the first principle.

As for the last statement: Paradoxes ARE contradictions that follow from assumed correct reasoning. When you find one, premises and the reasoning used should be examined.

The existence of non-argumentative arguments sufficiently validates the lack of a need of a polemic to validate my point.

Of course it adds up- the concept of first principles is not beyond reason, but description thereof is. How does that not not add up? You're essentially just saying "no, that is not how it is", which is not an argument. 'God' is just a one generalized conception for first principles.

Secondly, you're misunderstanding my statement about a paradox. I know that they are contradictions, but the contradiction is derived through valid reasoning. The existence of a paradox does not mean that some of the premises used are faulty. If they were, then we would not have a paradox at all.

The fact that the latter extends to the former completely vitiates this conclusion. Given that I've already proved my point on this matter by citing reputable sources, and that a moderator has asked us to desist, it's probably better for you to drop it at this point.

If the logical reasoning is valid, then a paradox implies faulty premises.

As for your argument, at this point it's just an extremely convoluted way of saying "I don't know". Which again, makes the acceptance of "God" a leap of faith. I think it's safe to say you've left the cosmological argument behind a long time ago.

No, this is false, and it demonstrates an utter misunderstanding of what a paradox is. A paradox arises precisely when both premises are unassailable. Otherwise, it would not be a paradox.

My argument is an explanation of why we are incompetent to make intelligible commentary in such domains. Your previous argument implied that it was necessary to attribute certain traits to 'God', which is a non sequitur (see above). Now, perhaps after realizing you have no substantive retort, you proffer a fallacious summary of my position to avoid admitting its merit. Moreover, we're not exactly discussing the cosmological argument directly at this juncture, so your mention of it here is another attempt to shift gears. The argument is about the extent of reason as applied to first principles.

Lastly, as related above, the fact that the concept of first principles is itself not beyond reason implies that acceptance of 'God' is not necessarily a leap of faith. You're conflating a described god (e.g., one from scripture) with the concept of god.