Final answer:
The inconsistency arises from claiming knowledge that 'God is love' while also claiming ignorance of God's identity and will, presenting a contradiction between knowing God's nature and not knowing God's intentions or existence.
Step-by-step explanation:
The line of reasoning starts with the belief that there is a god, who is love, but then concludes with uncertainty about God's identity and will seem inconsistent mainly due to the contradiction between the assertion of knowledge of God's attributes (God is love) and the professed ignorance about God's identity and will. If one can know God's nature as love, it implies some level of knowledge about God's characteristics and, possibly, intentions. The inconsistency lies in claiming both knowledge and ignorance of the same subject.
Addressing the key questions related to the attributes of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity in the presence of evil can help analyze this inconsistency. Philosophers have argued that the existence of moral and natural evil challenges the coherence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good God, which may come into play when evaluating the original line of reasoning.
Thus, the inconsistency is not necessarily within any single premise, but rather in the transition from a confident claim about God's nature to a claim of uncertainty about God's identity. The implicit assertion that we can know God's character (as love) contradicts the explicit claim that we can't know God or God's will with confidence. Such contradictions are a common area of debate in the philosophy of religion and assessments of theistic belief.