Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Rahn127]

I'll take that as a NO, you can't define what is in the box.
Do you know why you can't define it ?

Because a definition is a description of what something is, what it does, how it behaves, a list of properties or attributes, etc.

And you can't define something without first knowing what it is.

Your definitions of a god are hollow and empty and meaningless because you can't give a definition until you demonstrate that the the thing you are defining actually exists in the first place.

You can't define an unknown.
A god is an unknown value.

I contend the value is zero until such a time anyone can demonstrate that it's value is more than nothing.

Certainly we can define imaginary things. If I talk about unicorns, we can agree on the basics of 'mammal with four legs and a head with one horn'. We can't point to a concrete and say that's a unicorn so we can differ on a lot of details, like whether a one-horned rhino counts as a unicorn; but we know a marmot or Triceratops doesn't. The problem with defining imaginary entities isn't that they can't be defined, it's that there isn't an existent referent to lock the definition down, so there are multiple versions. The unicorn I visualize may have a lot in common with yours, but there will be significant differences as well, such as mine having cloven hooves and yours having hooves like a horse's. And if a writer decides for their work of fiction that unicorns have rainbow-colored breath that stuns their victims; they are free to do so, because they're referring to their own imaginations.

Gods are more fluid conceptually than unicorns; and Bel's idea of a capital-g God seems to differ greatly from what most Evangelicals and Catholics have in mind when they think of God; but God can be defined, at least for the purposes of argument. Just like Superman can, and with many of the same difficulties (Superman's powers and power levels depend a lot on who is writing him at the time).

We can define imaginary things in terms of things that are real and exist.
Unicorns are horses (those are real) that have horns upon their heads. (horns are real)

What attributes does a god have that equate to something that is real and exists ?

And are we talking about an imaginary god that we are creating or a real god that actually exists ?

Sure, we can define all kinds of imaginary gods because we are creating them in our minds.

But if we are talking about a real god, then it's attributes are unknown. We have no way of determining what it actually is beyond painting it with imaginary attributes.

A god is invisible like those invisible things on earth....you know, those real things on earth that are invisible. He's like that. And everyone is probably thinking "What invisible real things on earth are you talking about ?"

Exactly- there is no reference point for that.

Any attribute you are giving a god is one that you are creating, not one that you have discovered.

You can define any imaginary god you wish, but you can't define a real god until you can demonstrate that such a thing actually exists.
Until then, all we can talk about are imaginary gods.