Veritas

So when exactly did God not create the universe? A long time ago when there was no life or consciousness? Or a couple days ago when you were thinking up this topic? Maybe he created everything five seconds ago and our memories of yesterday are artificial implants. How constrained to logic and scientific fact is your concept of god? Because you don't need a dozen sentences to say that you can't create something ex nihilo.
I'm just stressing the fact that the arbitrary is not true or false, so you can't prove it true or false. Some dork can always come along and throw arbitrary objections at you, like the universe could have been created yesterday with people and pets and politicians even.
Also, you begin your formulation like this:
You're dealing with "classifications"? In other words, abstractions. Your premise already assumes the existence of something that can form concepts.
Furthermore, "classifications" don't exist outside the mind, so they have nothing to do with how a material universe was or wasn't created. You aren't starting with anything objective, not the real or alleged referrents of these "classifications," but the "classifications" themselves. Then you do switch to referrents, but treat them as if they were your earlier abstractions.
And finally, if "God" is a "classification," what does it classify? That which did not create the universe? Well, lots of things didn't create the universe.

So matter created God? Is God an Emergent property?
I have never been able to prove the "absence" of god in this universe, because there has to be a God that is absent. And if there is no God, no "absent god" can be demonstrated/shown/proved.
But it is easy to prove the nonexistence of omicience or omnipotence which I assume you have already been introduced to. But there are definitions of God that don't incorporate those traits as in the first mover.
The only solid indication of the non existence of god is that the idea that god created this or that, started this and that, is an unnecessary complication in addition to being arbitrary. Existence exists is complete, demonstrable, already proven out of the box. But it seems that the attraction to the God concept is that the universe having no purpose, is an uncomfortable thought for some. In fact it can be a very disturbing experience. The idea of a God has a purpose that is unknowable to us cures that issue. The existence of God is an emotional requirement not a metaphysical entity observed.
(there also are other psychological motivations to want God to exist).

Right, one would have to prove that the Law of Identity is false and then establish a new system of reality in order to prove an existence that can exist with no identity, which is quite arbitrary. 

I think that one can prove a negative in certain circumstances, but it has to be something that pertains to reality. One cannot prove a negative statement about something that is arbitrary and I think that is what they were getting at. For example I can prove that Karl is not in the room by simply opening up the room and seeing that Karl is not there. But Karl is at least a possible person and not arbitrary. The idea of God (strictly the miracle working god) is incoherent (rationally speaking) and arbitrary in regards to reality. 

Thank you to the posting contributors. Thanks for giving me both your time and consideration.

If I want to get to the top of a mountain, two possible options are available to me. I can take a helicopter or a can climb it.
What is appreciations relationship to value? Does appreciation come necessarily from struggle or from something else?
My end goal is to get to the top. From an emotional standpoint will I appreciate being at the top if I do so at the expense of the struggle to get there (there will be a lot of secondary accomplishments ie; muscle growth, a better understanding of climbing) or will I appreciate being at the top simply because I have accomplished my goal.
In other words what role does the amount of struggle place in achieving my values? Does struggle enhance the achievement of my goals or is it negligible to the achievement of my goals?
 
So in a another example, a person that is given enough money (given the have values to sustain it) vs a person that has earned it through hard work....

I don't understand. The claim for a theist would be the God is one out of many. Why would him being something distinct from everything else make him not God? Also, how do you justify the claim that God can't be defined? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you simply don't know how he can be defined instead of the assertion that He can't be defined?