Yes, are you saying this not covered within the argument? Seeing as He would only appear at the very maximum to be part of God, and so the whole of that which would be appearing would always necessarily be less than God, thus to Man, that which would be appearing would necessarily not suffice to be God and therefore not be God. It could claim to be God, “but you just aren’t able to see it”, but anything that wasn’t God could claim to be more than it was and be tricking Man. As an unfalsifiable claim, it would fail to be rational to take the being by its word - and further, even if one did “have faith” of “the rest”, “the rest” as necessarily inconceivable to Man would be not be able to be anything to Man, and thus to Man be “nothing”. Therefore one’s faith would indeed be in nothing - that there was an unseen aspect to the being claiming to be God would thereby not be a faith, as a faith in cannot be a faith. So my argument is not only a logical proof of the non-existence of God, but also a logical proof that a belief in God is in fact the ultimate Nihilism - as not just a grand statement but a necessary truth.
Surely it is a necessary attribute?
And if a necessary attribute of something is impossible, then surely the whole of that thing is impossible? At the very least it must be redefined, and in line with my Premise 2, I don’t think anything less than divine could ever really cut it as an acceptable definition of God. It would not be divine but mundane - just another aspect of the natural universe that we already have words for.
I think the meaning of “divine” in my argument is implied within the argument - it is that which is necessarily beyond the conception of Man. The divine is such that “Humans are unable to “entirely” conceive of the divine.” It is supposed to be something more than the mundane, of which Man can by definition at least potentially be able to conceive all aspects. All aspects of divinity by definition would surely not be conceivable else it wouldn’t be beyond the mundane, it is supposed to at least in part be “beyond” the mundane in order to be “divine”.
As such, I think it unreasonable to define God as St. Anselm did. “Than which not greater can be conceived”, despite being impressively great of course, would still be mundane to Man as it would be entirely accessible in terms of conception and just be part of the normal natural world, which as I have said above, “we already have words for” that do not have any connotations with the supernatural and that which is outside of humanity’s faculties to grasp. A being “than which not greater can be conceived” would just be everything i.e. the universe. Anything unnecessary “beyond” the universe would not be within the set “everything” and therefore be “nothing”. The universe as it is, naturally existing, is at least in theory fully accessible such that it would be entirely conceivable (but we just haven’t done it yet), and this is distinct from something that by definition would necessarily not be even potentially entirely conceivable, because at least some element of it would have to be necessarily beyond Man in order for it to be “divine”.
As covered by the argument, such a revelation would indeed be “how they would conceive of him from that point on”, but such a conception would lack divinity (and therefore not suffice as God in the minds of humans) because it would not include anything that was beyond man, and therefore not be divine, and therefore not be indicative of God. In order for God to show himself as God to humans, He would have to show an element of Himself to Man that is not possible to show to Man because it would be by definition beyond Man. This is logically impossible, so for all we could possibly know (as I explained earlier in this post), any revelation of “part” of God could be anything ungodly claiming to be God. And the entirety of what we did see of the revelation would be not be God to us anyway. To humans, as the title of this thread says, “God is an impossibility”.