In order to avoid all embarrassment, they tell us that it is not necessary to know what God is; that we must adore without knowing; that it is not permitted us to turn an eye of temerity upon His attributes.
But if we must adore a God without knowing Him, should we not be assured that He exists? Moreover, how be assured that He exists without having examined whether it is possible that the diverse qualities claimed for Him, meet in Him? In truth, to adore God is to adore nothing but fictions of one’s own brain, or rather, it is to adore nothing.
I used to enjoy asking believers how they knew god’s love was infinite without an inductive proof. Clearly, god’s mercy is not since the almighty ran out of it in a rather spectacular fashion on certain occasions.
In terms of Argument Clinic, I’d say god is merely a label, for a set of a person’s opinions about what a god should be, if there was a god. In that sense, it doesn’t matter whether there is a god or not, people act as if their opinions were real. When you actually try to get believers to compare notes about what they think about god, this becomes readily apparent: most of them never examine their idea of the properties of this allegedly supremely important thing.