What's wrong?

You are entirely free to attempt to create an axiomatic system that describes god. Many have tried and failed.

The thing you're forgetting is that both types of geometry you site are entirely logical in themselves. If we apply this restriction to god we immediately run into problems. But we run into even bigger problems if we deny this restriction.

Making a god out of axioms is apparently a fool's errand. But you're welcomed to try.

You are taking the analogy too far. An axiomatic description of god seems a fool's errrand to me as well. What I am suggesting is that each of us holds at our core a set of beliefs (axioms) that frame our reality. The existance of god is un-provable as is the non-existance of god. Hence any framework of reality that addresses the question of god's existance must accept yea or nay and go from there.

This actually allows for theism, atheism and perhaps an explanation of reality that simply refuses to address the question of god's existence. Not agnosticism, but rather akin to a null value in a data field.

It can never be a fully rational thing. Every argument in favour of theism is fundamentally flawed. It comes down to epistemology. You can't ever know there is a God, unless a God comes and says "Hi! I'm God." which doesn't happen and in all probability won't happen. You're looking at the world might suggest to you that it was designed. It doesn't look all that designed to me, but to some people prima facie it does. Your reason might bring you to the God conlusion, but it can never be totally in depth reasoning because for that you would need to look long and hard at all the scientific evidence - none of which presents itself to a God conclusion. To be a theist you must work on some kind of assumption to begin with, for the argument from design this means that you must work on the assumption that something that appears designed must have a designer - this is the result of the intentional stance, something wired into our brains to help us identify predators and predict their actions - many creatures have it. But ask yourself, why should it need a designer? Let's say you have a rock face where there was a glacier, the glacier wore the rock face down and made it smooth, perfectly smooth, so smooth in fact that you would think it had to be designed - but no, it was a glacier thousands of years ago. A glacier is just ice, moving very slowly down a mountainside, does ice have consciousness? No, it's just H2O. Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

Give me any theistic argument and I can rip it to shreds.

Good thing.  I was going to have to start posting links and I'm really tired!   

Please keep in mind that a negative cannot (usually) be proven.  It is the responsibility of the person who asserts the positive who bears the burden of proof.

Anyway, glad to have you aboard!

There's two main types of argument against belief in God.
One says even if God isn't disproved, we don't have to absolutely disprove something to validate dis-belief and invalidate belief. God is up there with unicorns and pixies. Arguments of this type try and show that belief in God is absolutely unnecessary, so is quite pointless.

The second goes further and points out that the word 'God' isn't well defined. If I asked you to prove Unicorns exists you could find me a Unicorn and I would recognise it as such. We both know what a unicorn is. If I asked you to prove what a twithy is then the correct reply would be "wtf is a twithy" as we cannot even talk of belief/unbelief, let alone proof, until we know what we are talking about.

There are various arguments that descriptions given of God actually fail to describe anything. (this is the 'non-cognitivism' stance that Deluded was talking about) If the word God is meaningless then we can't even understand what we are talking about, let alone believe in it.

However, these arguments aren't obviously correct, so I don't think it's necessarily irrational for someone to be sceptical of them at first and believe in the meantime.

So you don't see contradiction as a problem?
The thing is, a contradiction involves a violation of the rules of our language. For a sentence to mean anything, it has to follow the rules of language.

"sldjsdlkg lsdjflsdkgj" is meaningless because the letters don't form words.
"I can carrot" is meaningless because carrot is a noun where an action should go.
"I am both strong and not strong" might not be meaningless if you interpreted it like this:
"I am both strong (compared to an ant) and not strong (compared to a giant)" but in that case it's not a real contradiction.
A real contradiction is "P & ¬P". 'strong compared to an ant' and 'strong compared to a giant' are different things.

So is a real contradiction always a break in the rules of language?
Here's an example why:

"The law of contradiction doesn't apply to me!"

"No. I'm not an idiot."

"No, I told you I'm not!

"How can I both be an idiot and not an idiot?
It makes the word 'not' worthless as the whole
point of it is to show something isn't the case."

If you were to allow contradictions to be true then the word 'not', and language as we know it, would become meaningless. Seeing as language is as it is, if a definition has a contradiction in it then it is meaningless.

We can talk of chairs existing because we know what chairs are.
We can talk of unicorns existing because we know what unicorns are.
Both of these words have coherent, non-contradictory, definitions.
If God isn't defined properly as a word then it doesn't even make sense to talk about a 'God', let alone declare its existence!

I should probably clarify what I mean by 'meaningless'
It depends on the context.
To say that God exists requires us to define God in a certain way.
Deluded's point was that the characteristics that people give their definition of God makes this impossible.

The logical deduction would go something like this:
Premise 1) If we are to say that x exists then x must be coherently defined.
Premise 2) God cannot be coherently defined.
Conclusion) It cannot be said that God exists. The proposition 'God exists' must be false.

I'm gonna jump back in here.

As a noncognitivist, I hold that the definition of God is nonsensical. Before asking whether X exists or not, I want to know what X is. The attributes I listed where what classical theists understand God to be. Sentience, is not just an attribute of God, but a defining attribute, in the same way that the defining attribute of a chicken is that it is a chicken. I thought that by taking that to pieces, I could compellingly show that classical theism is impossible.

Do you remember the last sentence of the argument? It was carefully phrased. I didn't ask "What is the probability of God's existence?". I asked:

What is the probability that God is a supernatural entity capable of communicating with humans, the creator of the universe, of maximally intelligent sentience?

Essentially, to me, this is what your statement readsL

Given that a chicken is a chicken, the probability of a chicken is X.

You (in confucious voice) Ah yes. But what if the chicken is not a chicken? Then the probability is Y.

Go through the last part of the argument. I started with a collection of attributes about God. These attributes are all held by classical theists. Some of these attributes presuppose each other. For instance, maximal intelligence, communication, omnipotence etc are all presupposing Sentience, while concepts like creator of all, eternal, supernatural etc are all presupposing etherealism. I first showed that these two concepts were mutually exclusive. God could not be both. But IF God was not both, then God was not God. Which is what I showed next. Afterwards, shooting down extra concepts like divine revelation were just bonus points.

I then took attributes away one by one. The remaining attributes were still impossibly contradictory with each other. I then pointed out that the Sentience parameter is in and of itself the "God parameter" since if God is not sentient, then God is not God. We define God by sentience. Think about the attributes which are definitionally given to God. Omnipotence, maximal intelligence, benevolence...I tried to show that these were contradictory with another belief about God which is that God is the creator, and therefore precedes his creation (physical reality). I also tried to show that these attributes were all impossible per se under quantum physics. I felt I suceeded.

Remember, these are the attributes which define God. If not these...then what?

It was a matter of proving that the definition of God is nonsensical. If Deluded's proof holds then all concepts of 'God' with those characteristics are incoherent and all worldviews that contain them are false. So it gives that nailing argument against theism that you were looking for in your original post.

Ofcourse, there's always the possibility of new definitions of God but until a fully coherent God concept is given, all theology concerning God is false.

How do you live without faith? Just to function everyday you have to have faith. I have faith that my car is going to start in the morning, I have faith that gravity wont suddenly fail us. A more appropriate criticism would the 'blind faith' often involved in theistic beliefs. If you are familiar with David Hume, you will know that he suggested that we cant say 'x' caused 'y'. He believes we can't necesarily prove the connection. We can assume there is a correlation and nothing more. Should we always live in fear the assumption that 'x' causes 'y' may fail us since we can't prove it? No, one must have faith in the correlation, common faith yet faith nonetheless. It's economically irrationally for the average middle-class man to buy a new vehicle yet countless people do it (Of course no one here would) . Logos involves perception and perception is apt to fail us. In the end everything is relative thus the idea of "reason" and  and rational are subjective. I apologize that my comment bounces around, but my main point is it hard to objectively criticize an individual for being irrational.

Thats why I clarified and presented a far more appropriate term 'blind faith'. The term faith is much too ambigious. Science is consistly changing and is often theoretical (basis for most experimentation) taught as fact and often has a chance of later being proved false (or as they prefer 'clarified' 'revised&#39 "Intellects" rely on the often changing scientific 'truth'. Criticize theists all for being ignorant but how are theists any different from the rest of the common man? How many times do people listen to others because they have authority of some sort. (politicians, PH'ds, etc) How many times do people believe a scientific fact yet do not attempt to perform the same "reproducable" experiment. Kind of interesting because often you have to have some special certifications to perform there experiments. It seems as though authority is required, a secret society of people who hold the "truth". Sounds alot like alot of religions. You have the special people who tell everyone how it is and everyone follows. Almost everything has as much a chance of being false as true, becuase in the end, its all relative.

I think the problems is that everyone criticizes everyones ideas and beliefs and presents theirs as superior (yes like i'm doing, how ironic) but its hard to argue with the relativity of it all. As if life didnt have enough drama "Save the drama for yo mama"

No, we have the not-so-special way of thinking (reason) that leads us toward the truth.

As for scientific errors, most often when they are made it involves areas that are on the very cusp of scientific breakthrough: new hypotheses and ideas about theories.  Established scientific facts are those that have generally stood the test of time and been reproduced over and over again.  

Still, it's nice to know that there is a system in place where a student can question the results of a practicing scientist and if the student can prove the scientist false, he or she will be recognized as correct.  That's the way science is supposed to work.  Granted, because of human foibles there are times when it doesn't work as well as we'd like, but it certain works better than relying on an ancient text that has been proven to be contradictory and inaccurate.