Can You define God?

Until we've established that he actually exists, why would we want to have an "in-depth discussion" of God?The greatest fault with religion/theology is that it doesn't even bother to establish the existence of the thing it claims to study, it just skips ahead to presuming the qualities of that entity. I think the conversation should remain at the level of "does God exist or not" until that issue is settled. And if it's settled on the side of "no, he doesn't" then I don't see what further conversation is to be had, aside from "if God doesn't exist, why is the deluded belief in him so widespread?" Why? His name is "God", and he could be defined as "the mythical being who is the focus of several of the world's religions and suggested to be the creator of all things." There's absolutely nothing mysterious about God. It's a perfectly simple concept. The sense of "mystery" is really nothing more than the mental tension created by fervent belief in an obvious falsity.

Isn't that evidence there's no such thing, though?

Ok, but this question won't ever be settled, either. So why trade one for the other? Why skip ahead? Why would anyone want to have a discussion past that point? With my mouth. Are the following words really meaningless to you?"Warp drive"
"Vulcan"
"Lightsaber"
"Hobbit"
"Elf"
"Dragon"Naming things that don't exist? Child's play. Literally, no more difficult than a child's game. No, not at all. If you go back and read you'll see that every portion of my definition is a positive term describing what God is, not a negative term describing what he's not.

No, quite the opposite. You could say that I was not a dog, not a horse, not a cow, and you'd have to go on down the list of 100 million different species or so. Saying that I'm "human" is saying what I am; being human is more than not being not human.I mean by your construction it's simply impossible to define anything "in terms of what it is", since every positive term connotes the absence of that term's opposites. (I mean "positive" in the sense of "making a logically positive claim", not "positive" as in "favorable" or "good.") I can't say you're greedy without saying you're not charitable, but that doesn't mean that the term "greedy" only describes you in terms of what you're not. There's more to being greedy than simply not being not greedy.

So, in other words, it's not going to be possible to say what something is without also saying some things that it is not.So the basis from which you've been rejecting all these definitions, like mine, is spurious.