'In what way can we demonstrate to skeptics that "God" is truly omnipotent, loving, compassionate and a beacon of light in a dark world? '
I see the chair; I have touched the chair; I have heard the chair as it slid across the room; I have smelt the varnish on it. I know this chair to exist. This chair I call G?D. This god-chair is omnipotent and compassionate.
The problem continues: you start with a feeble redefinition of a word that has a lot of baggage and then - without any reason other than it 'feels good' - you begin to borrow qualities of the more common definition of the word. You use the baggage.
That you claim that you do not believe in a personal god is utterly irrelevant to the point. That you don't believe in a god in a beard and sandals is irrelevant. That you reject other religions is irrelevant. What is relevant to the atheist, and what coincidentally is the reason a clear-thinking atheist will not be convinced by your argument, despite your best intentions, is that what you are saying is nonsensical.
