The Million Dollar Question

[Confused Ape]

He was the Supreme Being in the Sun domain so the definition still applies.

Except when it came to the morning, midday and evening sun.

Sometimes different aspects of Horus were used instead of Ra's aspects.

Horus

Horus served many functions in the Egyptian pantheon, most notably being the god of the sun, war and protection.

Since Horus was said to be the sky, he was considered to also contain the sun and moon. It became said that the sun was his right eye and the moon his left, and that they traversed the sky when he, a falcon, flew across it.

All you are proving is that Egyptian theology was not very well thought out and does not make much sense.

Again a very muddled theology which is bound to happen when people create their own gods, I am not sure how you think that’d change the definition of a god.

The point I was making is that a deity's attributes and domain depends on theology. The Egyptians, as you said, had a very muddled theology. Who, exactly was the supreme deity of the Sun?

So, let's move on to theology. Does the proof of a deity being real depend on how consistent the theology is? Christians have a supreme being but they haven't been 100% consistent where attributes are concerned.

Christians have had a very consistent definition for a very long time now so that is just factually incorrect.

How far back are you going in this very long time?

History Of The Trinity

There were various ideas concerning what the Trinity meant, all supposing that God really was a Trinity.

Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110,[26]

Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds,[31] or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs,[32][33] all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers[31] in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιος, "of the same being") in the sense he used it.[34]

Another controversy -

Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being.[35] For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.

It did get sorted out eventually.

In the fourth century, Arianism, as traditionally understood,[note 1] taught that the Father existed prior to the Son who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature who was granted the dignity of becoming "Son of God".[36] In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted the Nicene Creed which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". The creed used the term homoousios (of one substance) to define the relationship between the Father and the Son. After more than fifty years of debate, homoousios was recognised as the hallmark of orthodoxy, and was further developed into the formula of "three persons, one being".

The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[39] The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[40] He defended and refined the Nicene formula.[39] By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.[39]

After that the Roman Catholics managed to wipe out all the opposition until Protestantism came along. I'm going to finish this post with Modern Christian Groupings Who Are Non-Trinitarian

I'm not going to quote them but there are a considerable number of them. The question of whether or not the Christian God is a Trinity isn't as muddled as Egyptian theology but all that can be said about these different ideas is that Jesus is in there somewhere.

It’s been me-the Christian here-who has been arguing for a set definition for the term god. The people trying to argue that there is no actual definition for that term have all been atheists.

Okay, so let's go with your definition. How does that prove the Christian deity is any more real than Odin who was the highest of the Norse gods?