God is an Impossibility

The only one who knows that is god. Everyone else is not supposed to judge who is and isn’t a christian.

Pretty much every christian fell for the sales talk then.

There are no commands, unless belief is a command.

That’s pretty much what christians say. Show me a christian who loves his enemies.

Correct. Now you understand.

Except that 1) nobody can agree what those requirements are and 2) there are no requirements, but only evidence, however the only one qualified to interpret the evidence is god; everyone else is to suspend judgement. Anyone claiming to be christian cannot be said to be wrong by any man.

Judaism doesn’t require the following of laws to attain salvation? That was the point of Jesus coming: to split from the idea of following law.

Ok then, no one loves their enemies, therefore no one is a christian, therefore your category is empty.

That’s about all they agree on.

Yes but he required religion in order to carryout the deception.

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

comereason.org/can-you-lose- … vation.asp
backtothebible.org/post/is- … -salvation
biblearchive.com/blog/can-i-be- … e-unsaved/

“Once saved, always saved” is a popular tenet of Christianity, but there are those who believe it’s possible to backslide. Jesus didn’t speak kindly about that: Luke 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Only one sin is unforgivable:

Matthew 12
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

I’m not exactly sure how to go about committing that sin.

The Quran is so blatantly evil that I can’t believe anyone would follow it. The bible seems innocent, so many are lured inside.

Why would a good person not want to kill evil?

Your naive view of it illustrates exactly why it’s so dangerous.

I suppose the big fear is that muslims take over white countries with nukes, but I think by the time that happens, the muslims will be smarter and less prone to violence. The solution is education.

He devoted a whole chapter in his book to it. How can a hasty generalization follow from so much research?

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress … -hitchens/

Good people will do good and evil people will do evil, but to get good people to do evil requires religion.

Environmental stress causes the brain to favor lower cognitive functions at the expense of higher functions such as empathy. As technology progresses, people will endure less stress and grow more empathetic brains and religion will fizzle out.

But not on a mass scale.

In the name of humanity we can battle cancer, but can we put all jews to the sword in the name of humanism?

So, what’s your method of dealing with it? War in the name of humanism? Should we kill them because they want to kill us?

That is my point.
The Christian God delivered his terms via the NT.
Therefore the NT is the basis [deliberated philosophically] to determine who is a Christian.

How do you know every Christian did not take note of the small prints?
I don’t believe Christians are that superficial because their Church would have informed them of the requirements within the small prints of how to become a good Christian.

Note Mathew 19:23-26
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Note the above

… Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments …

Here is one;

Pope at Mass: ‘Forgive, love our enemies’
vaticannews.va/en/pope-fran … emies.html

The Pope himself is one good example of living up to his call, i.e. he extended ‘love’ to Islam which has for centuries and till the present been killing Christians.

Note my point above, i.e.
The Christian God delivered his terms via the NT.
Therefore the NT is the basis [deliberated philosophically] to determine who is a Christian.

I did not claim salvation is a critical element of Judaism.

Note I have given you an example [above] of the Pope who love his enemies.
vaticannews.va/en/pope-fran … emies.html

Here is another group of Christians who love their enemies;
MEET THE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE THEIR ENEMIES, EVEN WHEN IT’S ISIS
orthochristian.com/97079.html

I have read of many Christians who love their enemies.

It is the same with Christian priests who rape and molest choir boys.
Sure these priest require Christianity to be Christian priests, but their evil act of rape and abuse has nothing to do with Christianity itself.
It is the same with Jim Jones, Koresh, and others who were Christians.

Note Mathew 19:23-26 re “easier for camel to go through the eye of the needle, …” which imply there is more to claiming to be saved.

If you declare, "I will not love my enemies’ that would be speaking against the Son of man, thus an unforgivable sin.

That is a fact.

Nope, the fear is when official and rogue Muslims majority countries and group get access the cheap and easily available WMDs.

Note, the Quran is the immutable words of Allah applicable till ‘eternity’.
Therefore if Allah commands and exhort Muslims to kill non-Christian, then no Muslim can change the words of God. If any Muslim does that, he will go to hell.
Therefore if there is an easy and greater method [WMDs] to get rid of non-Muslims and even themselves they will do it. It is a win-win for them, regardless of how they die, they are assured of a place in heaven while the non-Muslims will definitely go hell.

Nah, Hitchen already got it very wrong when he conflated Communism as a religion.
I had argued, what is a religion conventionally is best defined by Ninian Smart in his essential 7 Dimensions that qualify an ideology and practice to be a ‘religion’.

Religion [theistic or non-theistic] is driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
Humanity can only wean off religion when we are able to understand that existential crisis thoroughly and developed the ability to modulate the impulses of that unavoidable existential crisis.

I just happened to be listening and as luck would have it:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwTQsvhq3ew[/youtube]

52:29
the question about Islamic ideas in
52:31
practice??? I mean Islam is like
52:43
Christianity Judaism Buddhism:
52:48
there’s no such thing as Islamic ideas
52:50
there are lots of different Islamic
52:52
ideas just like Christian. The real
52:55
question we should be asking,
52:57
particularly here, is what about
52:59
Christianity? That’s something we can do something
53:02
about. ok so that’s the highest priority.
53:06
So what are Christian ideals?
53:08
well they vary all over the place: people
53:12
in high places now claim to be devout
53:16
Christians and on the basis of Christian
53:19
ideals they’re saying let’s proceed to
53:21
destroy the world. I don’t know anybody
53:24
in the Islamic world is doing that.
53:26
That’s of course not all Christian
53:28
ideals, there are others too. Martin
53:31
Luther King expressed different
53:33
Christian ideals and it’s the same with
53:35
the Islamic world: you can find lots of
53:38
things, but the idea that there are fixed
53:42
Islamic ideals which are a problem for
53:44
the world: that doesn’t mean anything.

Prism, it appears you’re now fighting Chomsky as well as Hitchens; two of the smartest people in modern history.

There is no standard Islam or Christianity. Religion itself is the problem. And Christianity is particularly dangerous because it seems so innocuous.

Appealing to authority?
The only thing that appeal to me is the soundness of the arguments they present not their reputation.

I am very familiar with Chomsky from long time ago re the Battle of the Linguistic.

Chomsky thinking in terms of the fundamentals of language and in this case Islam & Christianity and Buddhism is too shallow.

Note this;

It is true there are certain patterns within language from an external analysis BUT there are more deeper fundamentals related to language from our evolutionary past.

Even reason and logic is rooted in our biology;
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology)
amazon.com/Evolution-Reason … 0521791960

Chomsky may be a very good analytical thinker but he is not a good deeper thinker like Kant whom I favor.

In the above video, he was merely expressing opinions without any argument. You should not rely too much on the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Btw, I have provided sufficient argument to justify;

A Jew, Christian and Muslim is one who had entered into a covenant/contract with God explicitly or implicitly to obey his commands and terms as expressed in the official holy text, i.e. the Torah, NT and Quran respectively. This is the fundamental principle with variation in forms.

Example an American citizen would have pledged allegiance to the American Constitution as the basic requirement regardless of whether he act accordingly in practice or not. In the event of non-compliance then the courts will decide.
If an American killed many people, he was not doing it as an American but rather his own evil nature. We cannot blame the US for that act.

Any acts by the believer outside the scope of the official holy text[s] cannot be attributed to the religion itself. E.g. a priest who rape and molest children has nothing to do with the essence of Christianity per se.

Religion?
There are pros and cons for religions relative to time.
I agree the shelf life and the effective usefulness of religions are expiring soon.
However Islam is the worst of all the current religion and should go first before other religions.

Sure, The Soviet- Union was sytematically abusive of Jews. We can have racism without religion. And while Hitler made Christian noises sometimes, his beef with the Jews was not religious it was racial. And Stalin and Mao killed millions without religious justification. I could easily see non religious elites today culling or setting things up so that most people had no resources, based on free market ideologies of various kinds and presumed superiority. At best human empathy has a small radius. Human greed has a huge radius.

How are we to know the definition of christian if we don’t consult the authorities that defines the definitions?

You are perfectly within your liberties to create a definition of christian that is antithetical to that of representatives of intelligentsia, and encompass an empty set, but I don’t see the value in bullheadedly swimming upstream.

I was a christian all my life and I live in the middle of the bible belt, but you say I don’t know what a christian is.

Now you say the writer of over 100 books doesn’t know what he’s talking about either.

Christopher Hitchens is likewise stupid as well as Alan Watts.

How do you innately know more than people who have devoted their lives to the study of these things?

Just because his ideas on language were shallow doesn’t mean his every thought is shallow.

I’m not relying on Chomsky. I know what a christian is because I never knew anyone who was not. And zero fit into your definition of them.

And Chomsky agrees with me that idealizations of what it means to be a christian or muslim are meaningless.

Only in your mind.

I am a citizen who never pledged allegiance to anything (except that drivel they made us recite in school, which didn’t count as a true pledge). Simply being born in america makes you a citizen. You could wipe your butt with the constitution and still be american. Actually, it’s expensive and difficult to become a noncitizen.

People do blame america for not banning guns. “America, when will you learn?” they say. An american is one who likely has guns and therefore has more capacity to kill than non-americans.

No but it trusts sex-deprived men to be in close contact with lots of kids.

I had a muslim friend once and he didn’t try to kill me, so does that mean he was not muslim?

That just exemplifies the motley mix of interpretations that exist. Some Christians believe commands are to obeyed and some do not. Some Christians believe X, some Y, some Z, some A, some B, some A+B, etc etc etc. There is no such thing as an idealized christian. Same with muslims: some kill and some do not.

The pope hypocritically decreeing to love enemies is not an example of loving enemies. Show me the love he has bestowed on those who he considers his enemies. I can show you the Nazi party and burnings at the stake and the condemnation of Galileo as examples of the Pope’s love for his enemies. What evidence do you have? Did he give his enemies money? Food? Build schools? Or is he all talk?

The only christians I have ever seen who love their enemies only do so in order to heap hot coals on their heads, which isn’t loving enemies. I have never seen anyone genuinely provide care for their enemies.

I already addressed this. You’re going in circles. The NT says to simply believe. The NT can be interpreted anyway one wants.

Then what’s the point of it?

So the bible contradicts itself. Nothing new there.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk[/youtube]

No, the son of man is not the holy ghost. The son, the father, and the holy ghost are 3 distinct persons, but also one god.

I’m not afraid of that. If they set off a dirty bomb we’d turn the middle east into a glass crater and then go sing praises to the lord in church on sunday.

Yes but the people who believe that are essentially chimps. Chimps in the jungle are scary, but chimps with bombs are not scary. All they could accomplish is pissing off the means of their extermination.

Right, because you said so. Hitchens provided reason and rationale which you countered with an authoritative claim that he is wrong without any accompanying reasoning.

That looks like education to me.

One doesn’t need to be religious to hate jews, but to convince a population to hate jews requires religion.

If christianity hadn’t existed, then the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin could not have been accomplished.

Here then, the central premise of Hitchens’ argument is worthy of reiteration. Had Stalin inherited a purely rational secular edifice, one established upon the ethos espoused by the likes of Lucretius, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Einstein and other free thinking and rational secularists, then the apologist’s argument would hold slightly more weight, but such wasn’t the case. Stalin merely tore the existing religious labels off the Christian Inquisition, the enforcement of Christian orthodoxy, the Crusades, the praising of the priesthood, messianism, and Edenic ideas of a terrestrial religious-styled utopia, and re-branded them with the red of communism. Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism. michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress … -hitchens/

The best argument for the impossibility of god is here nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sh … hy-n979626

[i]Cora Jones, 52, had been through a lot in recent months: a breast cancer diagnosis in December. A job loss and a move after that. But she had gotten through it thanks to support from members of her family, many of whom lived just several roads away from her in the small community of Beauregard.

So on Sunday, after church, Jones planned to go to her parents’ house and cook them a meal that included her mother’s favorite food: sweet potatoes. It was going to be a chance to have a nice evening together as a family.

Instead, shortly after they returned home from church, Jones’ parents — Mary Louise Jones, 83, and Jimmy Lee Jones, 89 — were killed when devastating tornadoes cut through eastern Alabama on Sunday afternoon.

Jones, whose home was not damaged by the tornadoes, raced to her parents’ place after the twisters hit, hoping to find them alive.

“When I got up that hill, I see no houses. Everything was gone. I just couldn’t believe it,” Jones said. “It looked like someone took a chainsaw and went, ‘swoop.’”

She found her father’s body. Emergency personnel later told her about her mother’s death.

“Just the image — I will never get out of my head. They really didn’t want me to see the picture, but I had to identify the body.”

But the losses did not stop there. A total of 10 members of Jones’ extended family were killed, including a brother, a cousin, a niece and a second cousin of her mother’s.[/i]

Anyone still think a god exists? Or that it gives a shit? Or isn’t a sadist?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLhkPTQvMzQ[/youtube]

Regardless of yours, Hitchens, Watts, or anyone’s definition of ‘who is a Christian per se’ there must be some objective standards to their definitions.

Per Christian theology, there is no way God will accord ‘eternal life in heaven’ to anyone who merely claimed s/he is a Christian on Judgment Day. God is supposedly all powerful, all knowing and is not stupid in accepting anyone’s subjective claim.
In any case, the omniscient God would already a person’s status whether s/he was a Christian or not by God’s own standards.

Thus a Christian must first know what is God’s objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ rather than relying on his own subjective definition.

Now, from a rational, critical thinking and philosophical perspective, the objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ has to fall back on the Gospels of the NT, i.e. as per the words and doctrines from God.

As such ‘who is a Christian’ is one who has entered into a covenant [explicitly or implicitly] with God.

The terms of the covenant/contract can only be in the Gospels of the NT.

Can you dispute the above requirements for an objective definition in conformance with God’s standards.

For a wannabe Christian to claim his/her own subjective definition [anything goes] is an insult to the Christian’s God.

When one do not has the habit or inherent nature to think in depth, it is applied to most of their various views.
I am very familiar with Islam and Buddhism in depth and I KNOW Chomsky thoughts on them are shallow.

Note my view of what is an objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ above.

Note my summarized justifications of an objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ above.

It is the acts that count not what you think or not done.
Why don’t you make the following claims and intention on some platform in any court in America;

“I will never pledged allegiance to the American Constitution, therefore I call upon all Americans to break the laws or kill others, and the likes.”

You will surely get your ass burnt in any legal issues you have had with the law.

Yes, many people will make all sorts on blames re ‘America’ but such has claims do not have any legal implications in say an International Court or the local court of any Nation.

You can’t blame Christianity per se which is objectively linked to the NT.
At most we can blame the admininistration of the related church and the individual but never the religion itself [unless it can be justified to its holy texts].

If he had entered into a covenant with Allah then he is an ordinary Muslim.
In the Quran there are gradings for being Muslim from ordinary [Muslim], to good [Mushin] to very good [Tagwa] with its respective degree of rewards in heaven.
Your Muslim friend [if he did not kill non-Muslims] would likely be an ordinary Muslim but cannot qualify to be a very good Muslim thus has no assurance and certainty of going to paradise [with virgins for some] with eternal life.
A Muslim who had killed non-Muslims [with it own definition of justifications] is assured of a certain and direct path to paradise with eternal life.

That’s true from god’s point of view, but only god can judge, because he knows the hearts, but how are we to judge? We can only take someone at their word, right? Are you a christian or are you not? We can’t go rummaging around their life looking for good acts and bad acts to discern whether or not they are christian.

You are essentially making a “No True Scotsman Argument”. You say “Well, that’s not a true christian; a true christian does _______”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Simply being born in america makes you an american. Immigration to america is basically paying some money and taking tests, afterwards you can use the constitution for toilet paper and burn the flag.

You can shoot someone, go to prison, and still be american in american prison.

I don’t know what my muslim friend would have said to that as it was 15 years ago, but he certainly wasn’t the type to kill people.

A christian who killed commies goes to heaven too.

That is my point, regardless of whether I am a Christian or not, it is God’s view as stipulated in the NT that objectively defines who is a Christian.
God’s words defining Christianity are represented in the Gospels within the NT.

Since the Gospels are available for all to read, why should we depend on any fallible Tom, Dick or Harry to define who is a Christian?

Straw man.

I stated, rationally and logically, a true Christian is defined within the Gospels in the NT directly from God to Jesus.

Note your definition is more ridiculous, i.e. you claimed to be a Christian previously merely because you claimed to be a Christian based on your own subjective definition.

Note the constitution is not the dotted pixels and the paper it is written on.

That one is an American because one is born n American is still defined by the Constitution and its associated Laws.

The above is conditioned by the Constitution, thus it is the Constitution that prevails.
The Constitution of Christianity is the Gospels supported by various relevant verses from the NT and OT.

The majority of Muslims are social and cultural Muslims who are not aware of the actual principles and elements in the core texts of Islam, i.e. the Quran. The cultural Muslims do not understand the full requirements of what it take to be the very best Muslim.

Your friend is likely to be a cultural Muslims who is being more human than being more Muslim, thus not complying with the higher requirements of being a Muslim.

These days there is a high possibility anyone [you, me, others] could be killed by zealous bad evil Muslims [compelled by their religion] anywhere around the world if you happened to be at a certain location and time.

Note this was what happened to some innocent tourists;

We often hear of surprises of a Muslim who was supposedly a goody-two-shoe or an indifferent Muslim who suddenly appeared in the news as a suicide bomber or killer.
These are the vulnerables who have been convinced by their imam [Islamic experts] who showed them the actual texts in the holy book from God, which promised them a certainty of passage to paradise with eternal life if they kill non-Muslims [with their twisted justifications of a threat].
There are tons of examples on such cases supported with evidences.

I’ve seen this sort of erroneous argumentation before.
While it’s true that God is characteristically attributed with omnipotence (being all-powerful), it’s not a necessary attribute.
I believe that when most theologians describe God as being “all-powerful”, what they mean is that God has such immense power that it causes great awe and wonder.
It’s a sort of figurative expression denoting God’s magnificent power.
God does not need to be perfectly powerful or “all-powerful” in order to exist; one can describe him, rather, as being the most powerful.

God is the supreme power. This, however, does not necessarily mean he has to be perfect.

Any religious person worth his salt will be able to tell you: yes, fellow humble mortal, from our humble mortal perspective, God certainly is impossible.

We call his existence a “miracle”.

Anything that we can logically account for is unfit to be considered Divine.

Of course we can’t account for the existence of the universe without positing a miraculous creation of it out of nothing with a nice big bang. So technically we are all part of a giant miracle.

You cannot bring in humility as far as a God is concern.

Note is it not confined to only omnipotence or all-powerful.

If your God is not perfect in the absolute in every sense and as ‘a being no greater can exists’, then it is implied there exists other Gods which are more superior to your God. The other more superior Gods can then dominate your God to kiss their ass or feet.
If you insist your God is such an inferior God, it is your discretion to downsize and disrespect your God.

However the majority of theists will always be driven to ensure their God is a being than which no greater can exists - St. Anselm, Descartes, etc.

In Islam, Allah is claimed to be the greatest which no greater can exists, thus dominate over whatever other Gods.

By default and human psychology wise, a God has to be ‘a being no greater can exist’ i.e. an absolute perfect God.

Otherwise your inferior God could be a mere dust spot to the more superior God which no greater can exists. Relatively your inferior God could be a speck of atom within the sh:t of the ultimate superior God which is infinitely no greater can exist.

Looks like you have to change your mind, then you are caught in the dilemma presented in the OP.

The reason is because the idea of God is an impossibility and the idea only arise out of desperate existential psychological reasons. The solution is to address these inherent psychological issues within oneself, but it is not easy.

Prismatic,

So many errors you make. Where to begin?

You state one can’t bring in humility where a god is concerned.

Really? Haha amusing.

Isn’t humility considered a virtue in many religions?

“Your god”, you say.

I’m not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor anything of the such.

You contend that if God is not perfect in the absolute sense, then it “must” mean that there exist other gods more powerful…

Hmmm… How did you arrive at that conclusion?

So, as an example, if the strongest man on Earth, whoever he be, is not “perfectly” the strongest man, if he just have even the slightest flaw, that must therefore mean that there are, of necessity, other men stronger than him?

Really? Are you actually that mentally inflexible that you won’t allow one smidgen of error or potential defect?

Ever heard of the proverbial saying “No need to be perfect” ?

The truth is that you don’t provide any evidence or sound reasoning as to how you arrive at your conclusions. You just arbitrarily assert your positions. Furthermore, you use very crass language when you are challenged. This suggests that you are insecure in your thought process.

Note there are many types of gods, weak, strong, monkey god, elephant gods, the many gods of the Greeks and other cultures.
For all the above gods, there is one master of all gods, i.e. GOD [with a Capital G], the only and 100% perfect God.

By “humility” I mean the theists will not compromise with God’s qualities in any way, so the ultimate God-proper must be an uncompromising 100% perfect GOD in every way.

Note it is not MY view but I gathered such a 100% perfect God from reading theists’ materials, i.e. Abrahamic and others plus the more refined philosophy of theology.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto … arguments/

This is very logical.
If you have x, then x+1 is possible.
This one-up claim very common in the children school grounds and other playgrounds.
Thus you will have a 1-up god for every god that is claimed to exist.

To avoid the above never ending one-up to infinity, every theists will claim their God is absolutely perfect, so no theist can claim a 1-up God over others.

If you are well versed with the Philosophy of Theology, you would have been aware the ontological God of St. Anselm or Descartes, i.e. God is defined as;
a being than which no greater can exist”.
see the SEP-Link above

You cannot compare a fallible human to an infallible God.
Your example is moot.

It is not me who is inflexible.
I have explained the psychological states of theists is such that one has to end up with the ontological God, i.e. the absolutely perfect being no greater can exists.

I have to bring in sufficient attention-getters to make the point rational and the point is whether my arguments are sound or not.
Have you read the Quran and Hadith to note how the Islamic God [Allah] had condemned [in crude and crass] the God claimed by Christians, Jews and others?

The whole idea of a GOD [illusory and impossible] is a mess of contradictions and dilemmas.
I have argued above, God is an impossibility to be real.
The idea of God [illusory] is only useful for psychological reasons.
I believe theists should suspend judgment for a moment and learn more about their own internal psychological state in regard to their belief in a God [illusory], note Know Thyself [Socrates].

This is a very Abrahamic concept and even in that a limited one. At some point in some theologies God became this mathematically perfect being. But many religions have even their chief Gods, like Zeus say, being tempermental, changing their mind, having tantrums, etc. And at some point being ‘more powerful than anything else and beyond our understanding’ became 'can do anything at all, even if it seems or is illogical, knows everything and so on, all the omni-characteristics. Equating this poor turning in part of a few religions theologies is misrepresenting religion and theism as a whole.

Prismatic,

The concept of a supreme God, or force, is not monolithic to the Judeo-Christian tradition, which you seem to argue against.

The Hindu version of the ultimate (or supreme) God, called “Brahman”, has some differing characteristics. Additionally, the Taoist “Dao” or “Way” differs from Yahweh (the Judeo-Christian God).

There isn’t just one, concrete or absolute definition of God. There is leeway in regards to varying interpretations of some of his attributes.