Some people (we won't mention any names) claim that "God" is "non-physical" or "metaphysical".

As far as I can gather, both of those terms are euphemisms for "imaginary" or "mental".

Thus, when someone says that "God exists" (and is "metaphysical"), we can safely assume (it would seem) that what they mean is that God exists IN OUR IMAGINATION (as a mental construct).

The only other way we could interpret "metaphysical", is to perhaps consider it synonymous with "unknown". Thus, "God" would just be an unknown variable that we might as well call "X", or "?".

In this sense, saying that God created the universe, would be the same thing as saying we don't know what created the universe.

If anyone disagrees with this, and has some other explanation of what the term "metaphysical" could possibly mean or refer to, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say (especially if it has merit).

This of course is yet another reason the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" is so silly. It doesn't make any sense to say that something imaginary "created the universe". That is a poor and contradictory use of language.

Clearly, imaginary things can not create physical things, and besides... if there were no physical things, then who or what would be imagining the imaginary God that created the universe?

If we look at things this way, it would appear that the only difference between an atheist and a theist, is that the former is being upfront and honest with their language, while the latter is being deceptive. The actual substance of their position is identical. Both parties consider "God" to be imaginary, only one party is using clear language to elucidate their position, while the other party is using deceptive language to obscure their position. Thus, the difference between a theist and an atheist, is purely semantic.