Why Agnostic?

[Purple Rabbit]

The first step in a proof is to define the premises. So the first thing I need to do is to define god. As soon as I try to do that I find it impossible to come up with a coherent definition. If it's impossible to define "god" coherently, then the concept must be incoherent. If the concept is incoherent, then it can't exist.

The weakness in your proof is that you presuppose that if god exist it/he/she is definable in terms of human language. It's a rather antropocentric attempt to prove his non-existence.

Oh btw, on the Tiberius scale I cannot be ranked (no problem really, I am used to having no friends in crime) since I don't think the existence of god is unprovable, only unproven. On the Dawkins scale I rank 6.