Something about all true arguements, and not just arguements which dont prove or satisfy any claims(even arguements for god's existence) is that they must ultimately provide a precise demonstration about all the terms in it to prove anything.
This is true since if that is not done, then for any part of the arguement which leaves an inspecific part(which happens anytime one makes assumptions, the only replacement for precise demonstration), there is simply not enough information to determine whether or not such an assumption is true.
It is possible to make an allusion to rules and information pertaining to an assumption which are known to be correct, but this is not avoiding a precise demonstration, since a precise demonstration for making those rules themselves was required.
Or, precise demonstration were required to make the rules and information which were required to make such rules.
So, all arguements must ultimately rely on precise demonstration.
This is why God must, in his characteristics, be made into a precise demonstration before anyone can take the idea of his existence seriously.
All arguements about God have always been based on assumptions which are completely pseudo-scientific and non-verifiable. This is why the idea of an existing god cannot be taken seriously for now.
Can anyone provide a precise demonstration explaining God?
Keep in mind that if you cant, "God" is no more believable than the Easter bunny for the reasons described above.
Edited by TheNaturalist, : its obvious