 
(Deletion)
 
No it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here that
driving a car requires faith that the car drives.
 
For me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I have in the
premises and the argument used.
 
 
 
No, that's a word game. The term god is used in a different way usually.
When you use a different definition it is your thing, but until it is
commonly accepted you would have to say the way I define god is ... and
that does not exist, it is existence itself, so I say it does not exist.
 
Interestingly, there are those who say that "existence exists" is one of
the indubitable statements possible.
 
Further, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is
already used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are implying
more with it, in which case your definition and your argument so far
are incomplete, making it a fallacy.
 
 
(Deletion)
(Deletion)
 
Where does that follow? Aren't observations based on the assumption
that something exists?
 
And wouldn't you say there is a level of definition that the assumption
"god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway.