If I were an Atheist

[AdamLOV]

But what the fuck is a divine being? A god? If I ask anyone to define them, all I generally get is a list of things it is not, in other words it exists less and less so that wherever science may find it, it's not there either.

Some people say the sun is God. And the sun exists. So I'm a theist in regard to those people. That's answered the question, some gods do exist. The problem is that there appears to be no restrictions on what is and isn't a god, is and isn't a divine being, is and isn't a deity, and so forth. Until it's defined to the point where it actually means anything at all, it's not a coherent claim. Who has the authority to decide what is and isn't an acceptable idea of a god? Since we have no experience of or data about one, except putting that label onto things we know exist, how can we agree that what someone says is a "God" or not?

Just the vague concept of "God" will vary from each person to the next. And the problem is that even if the God they think they are imagining turned up in front of them, they wouldn't be able to pick it out from a very powerful alien. They can just point at either and go, "That's my god!". I can't say they are right or wrong, because their definition is so vague as to cover whatever they want. But usually their definition would actually stop them being able to see it or in fact detect it in any way at all without using special pleading. Which is weird considering Eve had him actually standing in front of her staring at her tits.

Exactly the same question may be asked of abstract scientific concepts such as bioassays. What constitutes a statistically valid bioassay? Whatever the leading scientists in the field claim constitutes a valid bioassay. It all depends on who is making the claim. Therefore your question seems to be a broader one that is not exclusive to God, although you have admitted the existence of a plurality of deities. The question would be what constitutes God as such. If I understand correctly, your claim is that the haziness of the concept "God" prevents us from deciding which entity is God. My argument would be that the doubtfulness and haziness of a concept need not mean that one cannot utilize that concept. Despite the difficulty of deciding what is a statistically relevent bioassay, biology has utilized such methods of testing successfully. Similarly, adherents of monotheistic religions have contructed viable cosmologies even though "God" as such is a shadowy, empirically unverifiable idea. The central concept of an assemblage need not be clear-cut or straightforward.