Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Angrboda]

To be clear, I am a gnostic atheist regarding a God who is both omniscient and omnipotent, as I believe those attributes contradict each other and any God that is supposed to have them is a married bachelor. An omnipotent being can do anything, an omniscient being can only do what it always knew it was going to do. But if you chip down one or both of those attributes to the point they're no longer contradictory, like 'knows everything but the future' or 'can do anything logically possible', you can get a deity that is at least remotely possible, if not plausible. I am an agnostic atheist towards versions of God that don't have contradictory attributes or are supposed to have done things that never happened. The worst I can say about those versions is that I'm not aware of any evidence for one that a reasonable person who hasn't been indoctrinated from a young age should find convcincing.

I can understand why someone who has had a profound religious experience such as attributed to Paul on the way to Damascus may find it convincing, but I don't understand why they think other people ought to find it convincing.

I lean the same way, but can't go the extra inch to gnosticism due to not being able to deductively demonstrate incoherence between different attributes. I'm close to a demonstration that omniscience, moral perfection, and differing after-lives are in conflict, but there's a loose end that occurred to me as I thought things over recently, and that would need to be nailed down.