[Zhavric]

The problem with this argument is that to define something, you have to know what it is. Since there is no consensus on the nature of God then no single defintion applies.

Post-modernism ridiculousness.

You stated very plainly "If god is X then god cannot exist because of reason Y."

I've yet to see a definition of god where some derivative of that syllogism doesn't apply.

The other problem is that laws of science change.

Imagine for a moment you're watching a game of NBA Basketball. One of the players blatantly and flagrantly fouls a member of your favorite team giving him a bloody nose. The referee decides not to call a foul on the grounds that the rules of basketball can change and that we really can't know anything about it or what's going on. Most of us would throw something at our television screen and demand the ref be taken out of the game.

Fonceai, if he wants to be consistant, would say, "Oh, I completely agree with that call."

The laws of science change when we have reason to change them supported by evidence. This entire bit of your argument is laughable...
Scientists aren't huddled around fax machines waiting to see what the list of scientific laws will be for that specific day nor do they apply their craft based on that day's "memo". Science neither fears change nor does it conduct itself as though nothing has been proven / everything is "up in the air".

Your implication that we cannot base claims on science because it may change is ridiculous. If new evidence comes along that invalidates old evidence, then and only then do we review earlier claims made. So, if we find a way, someday, to create energy, that's fine. I'll be the first to state an omnipotent being no longer contradicts existing proven claims. Until that day, the claim that a tri-omni god exists is still false until proven true.

Thus, your assertion the "same chunk of factual information can be used to argue for or against God" fails utterly.