paulflexes saidHonestly man, it sounds like you're just making stuff up to justify believing something you know is false. If you truly believed that God is all-powerful and truly loves us, you'd question why he's so unable to be proven, and his word is so ambiguous and tainted.
But, um, I've just shown bishops in tamper proof ponchos. I would think it at least difficult if not impossible--assuming, of course, you believe in the impossible, haha--to judge from that what you think I might believe. Fact is you've no idea what I believe, certainly not from anything I've said here. So, chill bud, I get I'm not always so easy to read--I've often a very dry humor and I purposely do not always differentiate whether I'm being serious, though sometimes I'll leave a clue, Poncho.
But on an admittedly more serious note and to address directly one of your points, being vague and even at times seemingly tainted and even improvable would be characteristics applicable to God or a concept thereof for any number of reasons ranging from simply persuasive argumentation (not unlike how, for instance, a fundie might say that any info to the contrary is the devil's work, thereby negating from the get go further considerations) to the very concept of the free will of mere mortals which most anyone, theists or otherwise, might embrace as true (free will as true).
Curiously, it is some of the most non theistic who have been speculating as of late that we've not free will but rather that all our actions and thoughts are predetermined.
Equally, interestingly, seemingly on the surface contradictory to this principal of God, that God created man in his image, and so by that allegory in order for a vessel to be strong enough to accept that light without shattering therefor free will & it's subsequent evils. And should the vessel's light be seen, be known without being obliterated in the all-knowing, all-pervasive light, thus the darkness in the absence of the convenient God.
So that the argument would follow that if you are a point of light, a soul, then you'd only exist as an individual in the absence of the greater light which would otherwise overwhelm your light. That which would be created from God would not exist in the presence of God is how that thought would go.
So the argument goes that the absence of God and the existence of evil both would be required of theism. It is neither as you seem to be stating, contradictory nor non-proving. The absence and the evil don't deny God but rather are, well, maybe not so much a negative proof of God but at least negative aspects to the proving of that duality.