"Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply."
Since GOD is defined as all properties then I am not committing that particular fallacy. Defining something as everything is a fallacy in itself.
You certainly did. You said a certain object was God. That object not being God. Then proceeded to "prove" that God did not exist because that object was not on your desk. That is most assuredly fallacy of composition.
Defining something as everything is a fallacy in itself.
Then "everything" is a useless word. The set of all sets does or does not exist?