You have never once defined what you mean by “God.” Without a clear consensual definition of the key term in your argument, any claim you make about said term is balderdash.

The problem is, there is no consensual definition of “God” at all. Every theistic religion, and every theologian, has his or her own definition, and they are often incompatible with others’ definitions. Spinoza (I believe) said it best when asked what role God plays in his thoughts about universal causality after Newton. He said that he finds that hypothesis unnecessary. So do I.

But I am not an atheist, because to claim that something you can’t define doesn’t exist is as foolish as saying it does.

So what’s my own take? “God” is a convenient personification of the Sacred that evolved out of Hebraic monotheism and ramified into other monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam, and all their subsequent schismatic offshoots (e.g. Mormons, Rastafarians, Druze, etc.) But on the other side of the Eurasian landmass (India and China) no such personification of the Sacred evolved. Instead, these are Dharmic religions, for whom the Sacred lies at the nexus of the innermost self (Atman) and the entire universe (Brahman). Different strokes for different folks, but neither approach to spiritual practice is “right” or “wrong.” At their innermost core, both Eastern and Western spirituality have a lot in common, despite their different metaphors for the Sacred. One such commonality is summed up in the Great Commandment: Love God (Wisdom) and Love your neighbor as yourself (Compassion). And as Jesus (who is revered as a Buddha in Eastern traditions) said, the latter is “like unto” the former. Loving God=Loving your neighbor as yourself.

So what do I mean by “the Sacred”? Well, as Louis Armstrong said to a white interviewer who asked him to define “Jazz”—“If you gotta ask, you’ll never know.”