A possibly new perspective on this thing that we know as God.

[LadyForCamus]

Read it again; slower. And/or google “circular reasoning”, and then read about it until you understand your mistake.

You didn't answer my question of: What do you mean by "demonstration?"

Well I took your advice and looked on circular reasoning and found this: "circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade."

So it seems that once again it comes down to "proof and evidence."

What exact proof and evidence are you looking for?

Wow! Thank you, actually, for being the very first theist I’ve ever engaged with in 6ish years that actually looked up a fallacy I’ve called them on. I give you sincere credit for that. As far as your question: when you put together some kind of argument, either formal or informal, you need to have some evidence that your premise/premises are true, or likely to be true. That is simply an immutable fact of logic. But, even if you can demonstrate your premise to be true (that only humans possess this list X of attributes) which I don’t think you have or can, the structure of your argument still has to be valid. Yours isn’t. You’re essentially saying these attributes are divine because only humans have them, and your evidence that they’re divine is that only humans have them. In other words, you’re asserting the same thing twice without any evidence. What would count as evidence? Some demonstration of a god, and a demonstration that these human attributes are related, or caused by, or imbued with the nature of this god.