I read your reply, interesting analysis, so in reply.
You stated,
"The problem i have with your analysis, is whether disbelief, counts as a belief itself."
You can either believe God does exist or you can believe God does not exist, of course.
Sure. But theres a third option, of believing neither. I sorta touched on this earlier when i explained the two claims, and how believing both to be true, is necessarily a contradiction, but disbelieving both, is not.
Its sorta my fault though because the example i shouldve used here was the coin flip analogy.
An atheist by definition denies the existence of God anasima.
You are not an atheist if you are unsure whether God exists anasima.
Actually, yes, i am.
Atheism and theism discuss one claim in particular:
God exists.
If you accept that claim to be true, you are a theist. If you do not accept that claim to be true, you are an atheist. Its a true dichotomy, you can either accept that "God exists" is true, or not true.
Now, if you are unsure about whether God exists, are you accepting the claim of "God exists" to be true? Of course not. You are not accepting it to be true.
Therefore, you are an atheist.
EDIT:
Sorry, let me just expand a bit here.
In basic logical terms, something is either "A", or "Not A". In this case, the letter A is "A belief that a God exists". "Not A" would be "Not [A belief that a God exists]" or "Disbelief that a God exists".
"Not A", encompasses EVERYTHING that isnt "A". Thats sort of a given i suppose.
So, if youre unsure that a God exists, Clearly this is "Not A". Its not "A", so its "Not A".
I dont know if this explanation is easier for you or not, it certainly is easier for me atleast, to understand why being unsure about whether you believe a God exists is also atheism.
May I recommend agnosticism which is more in keeping with claims that may not be proven.
Well, actually, im an agnostic atheist. This is what i never understood with people who say "Im not an atheist or a theist, im an agnostic".
Agnosticism and Gnosticism go to what you know, or claim to know. Theism and Atheism go to what you believe.
You can believe, but claim not to know. Its sorta like the difference between saying "I believe this bridge is safe" and "I know this bridge is safe". If the bridge collapses, clearly the person simply believed that the bridge was safe, and was wrong in his belief. This is sorta going into epistemology.
Next you stated,
"The problem with your first problem with the definition of God,
is the fact that we can have concepts without being able to imagine it in its entirety. "
I can imagine a circle, it has physical dimensions.
God is spirit anasima, non physical, undefined, beyond intellect.
There is no comparison between God and the concept of a perfect circle.
If God is undefined, how do you know what its qualities are, i.e. that he is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, etc? Clearly you know some charactieristics, have some basic definition of what a God is in order to even discuss God with another person?
Further on anasima you stated regarding omniscient,
"Well, philosophers have been tackling this, and although there isnt a complete consensus,
there are equally valid groups of thought on this."
Philosophy is unable to make inroads into concepts of omniscient,
simply because we are finite creatures. Omniscience is only a word
with an invalid definition, it is not definable and never was definable.
But arent there even christian philosophers who have tackled this and have come to some sort of conclusion as to what omniscience means? Wouldnt there be people here who disagree with you as well?
Finally you stated,
"Firstly, you are making an argument that could potentially backfire on a theist.
If you do not understand, then how can you claim to believe in something to
which you have no real grasp of?"
I am not a theist, there is no definition of God that I could ever accept as far as intellectual
propositions are concerned. Every definition I have seen is invalid. Zero probability of backfire.
Wait, you dont identify yourself as a theist?
Furthermore, if you have no idea, no concept, no definition of what a God is, then how can you believe that he, it, exists? It would be the equivalent of saying "I believe that smargiuaidfjdf exists". I have no idea what smargiuaidfjdf is, and neither do you, but it seems to be on the same level as the God you are describing.
Epistemology suffers the same fate as the definition of God.
What is truth???
If we are talking about it in Practical terms, truth is knowledge to a high degree of certainty. I mean, they discuss this in depth with Platos works, of how Knowledge is justified True belief, etc.