The problem with any theistic view is just that, it is a “view” held by a singular person. Even if that persons view or belief is attached to that of a larger group (such as in organised religions) it’s very likely the persons theistic understanding personal, based some part of individual experience/ circumstances /culture and is therefore unique and never fully held by all parties. In essence even a Christian differs in their belief of Christian god to other Christians and like wise in Islam, Judaism etc.

The problem posed here is that “god” or “gods” are inherently subjective metaphysical concepts that repeated fail to be put objectively on paper. That is to say any theistic view is ill defined specifically but generally and collective well understood.

So how does one from a religious background define their god objectively to atheist? You can use tools and materials (the scriptures of religions) but even then these books don’t claim comprehensive understanding or definition of a god(s).

But herein lies the irony of atheism. One can equally argue that you cannot with reason or logic as a principle, be atheist towards all gods. Because you do not know “all gods” - the sun of interpretations off all individuals with a belief in such entities.

At most you can either academically investigate a form of theism/ religion and decide if you should deny the existence of that god based on reason/ logic or scientific grounds but in the end that’s one god. You can be Christian atheist or atheist towards a religious view of a particular individual. Or all major religions atheist. Or all religions you have come across so far atheist. But never in any of those cases could you be a total atheist.

This really leaves two categories; those who believe in some form of god but have yet to successfully define it or tie it In with modern understanding or their view is rejected by some part of the populous on reasonable grounds and 2). Those who are agnostic and actively refuting each definition provided in search of something they can fully refute/ cannot refute.

This argument thus seems mute. It’s impossible for an atheist to prove all gods don’t exist just as it is impossible for a theist to (thus far) provide anything more than anecdotal evidence.

Let’s consider a hypothetical theist now. I find that the more vague a concept is the more difficult it is to refute because of its intrinsically I’ll defined nature. This theists god is the universe and existence. It is omnipotent - all levels of energetic power/potential, omnipresent - all space and time, and omniscient - all information and interactions that can occur die to energy.

So far I would think it’s rather difficult to find anything to disagree on. Atheists could argue that the universe isn’t conscious its material and therefore external reality cannot be personified as “god” and a theist could argue well I’m a part of the universe and I’m a subject so the universe can definitely be in a state of personhood therefore I’d wish to subjectify it as “God”. Both opinions have validity until argued further whether deliberations and differences occur.

So herein lies the confusion really. Is universe the correct word? Or is god the correct word? Is there even a difference?

The real argument To be had is one where spiritual and religious philosophy and science stop trying to deny specifics and arbitrary rules about one other And begin to define something from the most general most fundamental laws and rules bans unite or find common ground in each other’s ideas of how to define existence/ the universe.