Carneades was the first ignostic. He found that the Epicureans and the Stoics just shot hot air with their definiion of the gods as applicable in effect to everything and thus to nothing! I find that as He has no referents as Primary Cause, Grand Miracle Monger, Grand Designer and so forth and He has incoherent, contradictory attributes, He is no better than a square circle or married bachelor.
Oer the atelic or teleonomic argument that since the evidence displays no intent, divine or otherwise as Aristotle thought, then to postulate a divine intent contradicts what science finds true! This applies not only to teleological arguments - design, etc, but to all arguments based on intent: there then is none behind the Big Bang - no Primary Cause and none behnd miracles-all natural,even fraudulent. Thus no referents for Him exist.
No one can make a definition based on empirical evidence for those attributes- onmiscience, omnipotence and so forth; supernaturalists merely guess with their it must be and it may be.They cannot define,postulate or use faith to instantiate Him.
No, this is not dogmatic or begging the question against supernaturalism but merely a demand for evidence. Sacred writings, personal religious experience and faith fail to comport with what is required for evidence.
Sacred writings meam only that mere men wrote them without that divine intent, making up matters. Religious experiences are only ones mental actons; to alleg divine intent behind them begs the question rather than as atheist Jonathon Harris states that we would beg the question against supernaturalists by denying,saying Marian influence.
Faith is just the we say so of credulity!
Now, what do you contend about all this? As a fallibilist, I acknowledge that I might err!
