Maybe you can re-state your position another way
I must admit I copied it!! LOL, from an old book. How about this:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-why_gods_cannot.html
Why Gods Cannot Exist
by Jon Nelson
Asking god-believers to define or describe the god they believe in can produce an enormously bewildering variety of responses. There seem to be as many definitions and descriptions of this god as there are people who believe in its existence. Since there are so many variations, it is obvious that these people cannot all be speaking of the same thing. Also obvious is the fact that believers always fashion their god to suit their own particular personality. If the believer is morose by nature, their god will also be morose. If they are happy and contented, so is their god. Objectively analyzed, their gods are nothing more than extensions of their own individual personalities.
Such a being as god cannot be said to exist, for the simple reason that things that do exist never produce such a wide variety of responses. God, if she/he/it/they exists, must be shown to possess definable attributes just like all other existents (things that exist) do. What attributes do believers claim their god possesses?
Theists offer many different responses and rationalizations to this question. Some of these are downright silly. For example, they will insist that "god is love." The fallacy of this statement should be obvious, for we already know what love means. If the words "love" and "god" are interchangeable, why do we need the word "god" at all? Why not simply eliminate the word "god" and be done with it?
Over the centuries, theologians have come up with a number of alleged descriptions of god. They tell us that god is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Notice however that these attributes contradict one another. First of all, no being can possibly be both omniscient and omnipotent. Why? Simply because if god knows everything, then he has predetermined everything; he knows in advance what is going to happen. This means that nothing can be changed. Neither god nor anything else can change events in a pre-ordained universe. Therefore, an omniscient god cannot be an omnipotent one.
Secondly, omniscience and omnipotence contradict omnibenevolence. For if god is all-powerful and all-good, why would he allow evil to exist in the universe? If god is all-powerful, he has the means to eliminate evil. If he is all-knowing, he must know of the evil that is occurring; indeed, he must know that it is going to occur before it does. If god is all-good, therefore, he must intervene.
The concept of free will is usually trotted out at this point to "justify" god's refusal to take action when evil is taking place. However, as we have seen, god's omniscience means that everything is pre-ordained. Man cannot possess free will if everything he says and does is known in advance by god. More to the point, the free will rationalization is a smokescreen; free will or not, god is still not doing anything about eliminating evil. The Holocaust of the Second World War alone is sufficient proof of that. Is it moral to stand idly by when you have the power and knowledge to prevent or eliminate evil?
How would a human being be judged if he was able to prevent a homicide with no harm to himself and yet did nothing? We are fallible beings, yet god is said to be infallible, making his inactivity all the more morally inexcusable. If we can judge humans to be immoral, we can likewise judge a god to be immoral.
Some believers try to rationalize the existence of their god by reference to science. They try to posit god as a quasi-scientific "explanation" for the existence of the universe and everything in it. They argue that, since everything that exists requires a causal explanation, there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. The universe must therefore have a cause, according to this argument.
There are a number of fallacious ideas contained in this argument. The first is that it assumes that positing god as the creator of the universe somehow solves the problem posed by an infinite regress of causes. Believers who advance this argument tell us that god is the uncaused first cause of existence. However, this does not solve the problem. Any third-grade child could ask the obvious question: Who or what created god?
If the believer insists that god does not require a cause, that he "just is," then why can he not accept the idea that the universe "just is?" Thus, we see that a natural universe requires the fewest assumptions. In logic this is known both as Occam's Razor and The Principle of Parsimony.
Notice too another logical fallacy: the circular reasoning of the first cause argument. The believer is saying, in effect: "Everything except god has a cause. Therefore the cause of everything is god." The believer is bringing his conclusion, i.e. that god exists, into his premise, i.e. that everything has a cause. He is trying to exempt god from the first cause argument by simply insisting that god does not require a first cause without supplying any logical reasons why we should accept this as true. The believer tries to set up a "problem" (the existence of the universe) and then immediately try and exempt their "solution" from the foundational premise of the problem. Any believer who continues to use this argument after the fallacies are pointed out is simply proving that there is something other than intellectual integrity guiding his or her actions.
It should also be pointed out that, since god is usually considered to be objectively unknowable, how does positing something unknowable (god) in place of the unknown (the origin of the universe) explain anything? Moreover, if god is going to be offered as an "explanation" every time we don't know something, why do we need science at all? This is the old "god of the gaps" argument and it too is fundamentally flawed: To ask for an explanation for a particular phenomenon of nature is to ask what specifically has caused it to come about. Answering the question by reference to a supernatural deity does not answer the question, for it tells us nothing at all about what this alleged god actually is, or of how it operates.
This leads us to the most fundamental error of the first cause argument. The argument wrongly assumes that the universe requires a causal explanation. However, this falls apart once it is realized that the existence of the universe is the irreduceable primary at the base of all causal change. When we speak of the universe, we are speaking of all that exists. If a god exists, it is part of that existence. If it does not exist, it obviously cannot be the first cause of existence. Nothing is outside of existence. Even if it were granted that there were some kind of uncaused first cause, on what basis can it be argued that this must be a supernatural deity? A naturalistic first cause seems never to have entered into the thinking of god-believers. If there is a primary cause, it might just as well be existence itself, which we can perceive, rather than a supernatural agent, which we cannot.
The universe operates according to the laws of identity and causality. The Law of Identity, first formulated by Aristotle over two thousand years ago, says that everything is what it is; A is A. Nothing, therefore, can be A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. The Law of Causality is an extension of the Law of Identity. It says that a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. For example, a human mother cannot give birth to a horse. The universe operates under these two primary laws. Why do we need an invisible, non-tangible deity to get it started? More fundamentally, how can a being that possesses no identifiable physical traits actually do anything? How can he be all-powerful unless he physically exists? How can he be all-knowing without possessing a physical nature? How can he be all-good unless he is physically able to do good things?
Whether the primary material of the universe is matter, anti-matter, or some as-yet-undiscovered form of energy, the existence of the universe is a metaphysical given. Existence is, in and of itself, the "first cause". To speak of a cause for existence is to demand a contradiction. The universe is the primary fact of existence; it cannot be reduced any further.
The "design" argument is another feeble rationalization offered up as "proof" of god's existence. This argument states that the universe, in all its multifaceted complexity, could only have come about by design, which believers argue could only mean by a god. This argument, like all the others, is innately fallacious. The principle of graduated complexity alone destroys it. This principle states that any creator is of necessity more complex than anything it can create. For example, the human mind is more complex than anything that we have ever constructed. Accordingly, god must be much more complex than the universe, and must as a consequence require an even more complex designer. Who therefore designed god?
The design argument also ignores the key issue of purpose. Everything that is consciously created is created for a purpose. Here, the traditional watchmaker argument turns against the believer. Certainly, there are no extraneous parts in the design of a watch. Every part of the watch is there for a purpose and every single piece of mechanism can be explained by reference to that purpose. Therefore, if believers think that there is design in the universe, then they must show the purpose of every single thing in the universe. After all, as with the watch, there can be no extraneous parts in the universe. The believer must tell us what god's purpose was in creating every living thing, every remote star, every atom, every grain of sand on the beach, and every thing else in the material universe. This is of course an insurmountable task, and it checkmates once and for all the design argument.
All of the arguments for god's existence focus on what god is alleged to do, or to have done in the past. Believers wax eloquent on what god does, but are conspicuously silent on what god is. This point is crucially important and cannot be over-emphasized. As most of us learned in elementary school, every verb must have a qualifying noun. "Running" is not an existent; but things that run do exist. The statement "giffles run" is as cognitively meaningless as the statement "god created the universe". Things that run can be objectively described and thus proven to exist. By the same token, saying that god is defined by his actions (i.e. by his being the creator) avoids the central issue of just what god actually is. Before he can do something, he must be something, which means god must be definable. All conscious actions presuppose the existence of an entity that causes the action to take place. To try and exempt god from this fact is worse than mere special pleading; it violates all common sense.
God, in order to exist, must possess certain identifiable physical characteristics. An entity without attributes is a contradiction in terms.
In trying to escape from this logical quagmire, believers often resort to what is known as negative theology. God is not like us; god is not material, god is not finite, and so on. While they might supply a series of non-descriptive personality traits (loving, powerful, caring, intelligent, just, and so on), these are tactics of evasion. It fails to tell us exactly what it is that is supposed to be loving, caring, intelligent and just. How is a "being" that possesses no definable positive attributes any different from not existing at all?
Finally, notice what happens to word definitions when used by believers to describe their god. Words like "existence," "being," and "create" presuppose physical realities in their correct use. However, when used by theists, the connection to physical reality is severed; we must re-define our words in order to accommodate the believer's imaginary deity. Yet to do this is to sever all connective links to reality For example, to describe god, as many believers have done, as a "non-physical being," is to ignore the fact that the word "being" presupposes physical existence. To accept this kind of verbal contortionism, you must reject normative descriptions of these words and replace them with new "definitions" which in fact are nothing more than rationalizations served up to justify the unjustifiable. They do nothing more than to render human cognition invalid. Consistently adhered to, this anti-rational approach would leave humankind on its knees, blind to the nature of existence, endlessly beseeching a nightmarish deity that cannot even be described for assistance that never comes.
There was a time when this type of thinking ruled the world. We call that period in our history the Dark Ages.
Godless.