Inconceivable argument for god

[xr34p3rx]

This is argument from Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed. In this argument it is possible to say that god does not exist since it's existence is not in any way present in our own. God is purely an idea or product of consciousness in the solipsistic way since without consciousness nothing can perceive god.
As to what you wish to call such an idea or entity is irrelevant as I said before since it is just a label applied to a thought which is a product of perception or the capabilities of our imaginations.

Here is my response.
A is a set of entities which exist.
B is a set of entities which don't exist.

Set A contains object or a subset of objects which are most inconceivable by human mind.
Set B contains an entity or a subset of entities which are most inconceivable by a human mind.

Now the most inconceivable entity by my mind might be different from the most inconceivable object by Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab's mind.
Also since we both have no idea what it is since we can't conceive it we can't determine if this object is from set A or B. Therefore we don't know if it exists or not. Therefore argument does not prove existance of god.
Also calling god the most inconceivable entity makes it kinda pointless since you have no idea what that entity is and why you should believe in it.

whats your deal with Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab? just PM him and post the debate lol