What I would like you to explain is, if you're seriously considering atheism, why are you avoiding the central question of God, which is 'does it exist?', in favor of arguing about its attributes? We may as well be discussing what color a unicorn could be. Once we've established that an invisible pink unicorn can't exist, we haven't got one step closer to establishing whether a visible brown one or a plain invisible one does or does not.
Make up the most reasonable, innocuous, plausible, likely version of God you want without any of the problems that seem to trouble you and there's still no good reason to think it's real. I don't have much trouble with the deist version of God, for instance. No PoE, no theodicy, no miracles except one. I just don't know why I should think it's real. It has the advantage of not being self-contradictory or contradictory to observation, like an infinite number of other possible being we could imagine do. All it lacks is evidence and a reason to exist.
That's all you need to know about atheism to seriously consider it. So make up your mind already.
Make up the most reasonable, innocuous, plausible, likely version of God you want without any of the problems that seem to trouble you and there's still no good reason to think it's real. I don't have much trouble with the deist version of God, for instance. No PoE, no theodicy, no miracles except one. I just don't know why I should think it's real. It has the advantage of not being self-contradictory or contradictory to observation, like an infinite number of other possible being we could imagine do. All it lacks is evidence and a reason to exist.
That's all you need to know about atheism to seriously consider it. So make up your mind already.
