Thanks for answering the question. Again, I would argue under your definition, which says that God is a "supreme being", that being supreme necessitates being all-powerful and all-knowing, or else you are not necessarily supreme. All-loving is a trickier one and I concede God may not be all-loving, but I would argue that being all knowing implies all-loving, since it means God knows the feelings and pain of each person.
Let's say it turns out that "God" is real but only concerned with souls... the one who created immortal souls for each of us at the moment of our birth/conception because "he" loves us, whose power keeps them undestroyed after death out of love for us, and who judges us and says following Jesus is necessary to have a pleasant afterlife. Would you tell this supreme being "sorry, I'll follow you I guess, but you're not God"??
You can't undo an entire theological system with a "let's say it turns out". It doesn't just "turn out". Christian (I'd even like to say Abrahamic, but I'm less sure here) Theology works because it's based on a set of doctrines that make it a coherent, meaningful system of thought. You can't relax some of these doctrines and just expect the rest to hold. If you want to argue, contrary to a 2000-years-old philosophical thought, that some parts of Christianity hold without God being omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, the burden of proof is on you.
