Now, while I can appreciate what you are saying, I think you are mis-establishing your concepts as ‘universal’ when they should be considered more existential.
A few problems I see in your philosophy (ignoring the fallicious logical syntax used - for this I will suppose that logic is merely a model, and so cannot accurately (that is, absolutely) account for existence (reality) and so, your argument can be treated as a viable idea still):
1 & 2. That God’s love is not omni in your representational system, and therefore, your concept of ‘God’ is either not absolute (God must be absolute, infinite etc.) or simply, not correctly established (God is misrepresented in your philosophica discourse above); and that you rely on a proposed duality in existence (that of the existent existence, and of the non-existent existence or the something and the nothing).
To lack is to represent something as a ‘towards’ completion - conception of what God’s omnibenevolence would be necessary in order to understand what the ‘complete’ presence of God’s love would be like, and then to understand that there is some of this love ‘lacking’ in existence.
To lack is to assume some ‘complete’ state, a state which does not exist (or else, the lack would not exist - it is either you lack something, or you are complete). Therefore, your philosophy relies on two ideas:
- The dichotomy of presence and absence
- The surrender of God as an omni- being into something that itself can lack (that its love is not absolute means that God’s love at some point of its existence, some essence of it, is not absolute nor complete).
So, can this issue be resolved and your philosophy still remain intact? Can God be represented as something non-absolute (something existent - something that lacks, according to your philosophy)?
I think to resolve this problem (that God is either non-absolute, or your philosophy is wrong) we can, instead of attributing the ‘something and nothings’ to God’s love (and lack thereof), attribute those ‘something & nothings’ to ‘man’ (mind) -
By pulling your philosophy back from an attempted universal (a failed attempt, sorry) application and placing it in existential becoming, I think we can say that your philosophy has some truth to it.
By attributing the lack to humanity, and the way that an ego may feel as though it is somehow missing something, as if it is trying to ‘surpass’ or ‘overcome’ some lack or disjunction between its existence and its completion, I think we can save your concepts, reduced, non-absolute, but saved - not found to be complete, but instead, existent, and lacking somehow. but what is it that the ego is attempting to make up for, what is the ego ‘lacking’?
The ego is lacking a projected completion (the God); it lacks because of the phantom presence of an absent presence - the absence is created in the discrepancy between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ (lacking - moving towards) which is projected by the ego; rather than missing from God, the lack is projected from the ego, it is the extension. The idea of God creates the lack - not that God exists, and then lacks!
The lack is therefore, non-existent, it is the nothing which lies coiled within existence (As you suggest?) - however, the nothing coiled in existence is actually brought into existence by the ego (by man and his projection of ‘completion’, and the subsequent ‘difference’ between ego and completion). If we attempt to establish the nothing as ‘being in existence’ before man - well, how can we establish anything before establishing a nothing? A projected ‘gap’, a ‘widening partition’ between ‘being’ (as ‘infinity’, ‘existence’, ‘God’ etc.) and ‘becoming’ (as ‘man’, as ‘ego’ etc.) must be posited by the ego in order to establish that there is a lack, and this gap represents ‘nothing’ - there is nothing there, but the necessary dual binary code of ‘nothing & something’ (necessary in order to establish any sensical information about anything - that is, the nothing is the negation of the something, and negation functions as the important differential reference between ‘things’)
Having resolved the lack back down into the ego, rather than as an emanation from God, can we get rid of the lack - the phantom presence of an absence of that presence?
Giles Deleuze urges us in Anti-Oedipus (at least, how I chose to read this part of the text urged me) to consider that the lack can be overcome (that is, that the desiring-production in us all is the complete, and that becoming is being), there have been seminal works regarding ‘partial objects’ - the ‘presence’ of completion (God) need not be posited; rather, presence as a partial object, should not be given the status of a ‘complete object’. This would remove the sense of lack one feels when considering something ‘complete’ (God being the state of ‘complete’ ‘absolute’), because the ‘complete’ is totally separate to the ‘partial’; the ‘complete’ arises from the partial, but it is not of the partial.
Hopefully, that made sense…
No need to consider God here, no need to consider things as binary black and white (mixing to form grey) because that is all existential thought, and it is as absolute(ly incorrect) as God. Though God may exist, the lacking felt is nothing to do with God, it is to do with the creation of a sense of completion (like how the crescent moon only represents a ‘fraction’ of the ‘full-moon’ etc.) and a movement towards it. God represents this completion (and therefore, represents the absolute ‘lack’ of ‘lack’ - the non-existence of lack); God is not the cause of lack.
Get rid of lack basically.
, however I should have said “sharing his belief” instead of calling his belief rational. I was just saying, because it isn’t in arguement form does not mean it should be eliminated as a topic or shared. But I do think “helpthe” should provide more concrete information about this subject instead of the flat and inane approach that he chose. Judging from another, I see he may have a history of doing this. I admit I am new to the argument forms being described 
. For instance all of the formulas being mentioned seem like math formulas. I am however, familiar with fallacies, debating and certain argument forms in writing. When I catch on, I’ll try to post in argument form. In the meantime If I do post a topic, I hope it isnt immediately refuted or overlooked because of my ignorance on what qualifies as a philosophy. Which seems to be an argument to be debated upon and weighed out.