I would think that any god that is proven to exist by simply defining it to be identical to something that exists is pretty worthless to begin with. You could a

I would think that any god that is proven to exist by simply defining it to be identical to something that exists is pretty worthless to begin with. You could always just short-circuit and just say "I am right by definition." Which really gets us closer to the heart of what proof is: it is that which will compel a rational mind into agreement. It is not enough to follow formal rules. It must be measurably dangerous -- potentially a catastrophic failure -- for a rational mind to disagree with a proof. Someone should be able to build a dutch book on your expectations and obliterate you for failing to agree with that proof. So until someone actually measures their god to be good, there are no consequences for a proof in either direction, and a rational mind should not be convinced.