Ok that's a little choppy (With all the quote tags and such) so let me go from a different angle.
1-I'll define God as the following.
God is the Alpha, the Omega, the one true God. God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity. God is creator, redeemer, guide. He is Father, son and holy spirit without rejecting Shema Yisrael. God is Love. God has a will and design. I welcome any Christian critiques on this definition.
As far as your point I think I see it. You're saying if God was finite (once never existed) he can not be all powerfull because a)you're defining all powerful as always being powerful or b)he was at some point created and (that by definition)thus limited in some way? Is that correct?
Well in regards to a) obviously that's not the definition of all powerfull ( I don't think that's what you meant, but I addresse it anyways) and to b) Something that once was powerless and yet now has the power to create a universe would still seemomnipotent from our perspective.
Let me work on the omnimax definitions-
Omnipotent- God is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature . Since he created the universe (speculatory) he would necessarily have more power and capacity to apply a force to any aspect of the universe he created.
Omniscience - God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.
Omnipresence- God is present at a place where there is a physical object that is at that place and God has power over that object, knows what is going on in that object, and that object can not stop God's power.
Omnibenevolence - God always Loves unconditionally according to his nature and will. He loves everything he's created regardless of their thoughts, conditions, nature or burdens.
Wihout getting into the why I believe both of the above should suffuce for a definition of the What is God as requested,
2- Back to the point,I don not have evidence or understanding of aything that happens outside causality, nor have I made the claim that I can prove with material evidence that God exists.
3- You said, "Self-affirmation isn't a valid method of distinguishing truth" yet the universe is self evident and it's rules, laws and revelations are used constantly to affirm real or unreal and truth vs fiction within the universe.
4- You said "Why, if an all-powerful being sent a CLEAR message to those he cares for and loves so much, did he do so knowing that it wouldn't be adequate? It doesn't make " I'll try and explain why. The key to seeing the clear message of God is living in his love. I'm trying to tell you that believers are far more consistant than the perception from non-believers. You're seeing 2000+ different ideas of God and it's understandably confusing. I'm telling you while there meay be 2000+ groups that have added various things to the basic definition, we all agree on that basic definition, that's what makes us Chrstians.
I think I answered all of your questions with that, if I missed any please point them out.
1. You're still having trouble with this. I'll help you out.
Omnipotent - One having unlimited power or authority:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/omnipotent
Tell me, how exactly does one have unlimited power if one is a finite being? How can he have unlimited authority if he did not author the parameters of his creation?
It's not about perceptions from our limited scope, it's about logical contradictions. If this entity had the qualities you suggest, he would be a logical impossibility.
By the way, how is God omnipotent if he cannot go outside of the boundaries of his own nature? How can he be the author of such parameters in that case if he is immutable?
In addition, omniscience negates omnipotence. I'll give an example.
God knows what he's going to do at any point since he's omniscient.
However, he cannot do anything BUT that - negating his omnipotence. Not only would this make God not omnipotent, it would make him necessarily impotent and the most controlled being in existence, since he has absolutely zero room to exercise any free will.
If he can change course, that would mean he did not know what he was going to do - which would negate his omniscience.
You can't have both. It's another glaring logical impossibility.
2. So how would you distinguish such a being as being necessarily existent with all of these attributes from being non-existent? How do determine what is real and what isn't?
3. There are two things going on here.
The laws of the universe are
descriptive - they are a model of how things are within the universe.
However, our perceptions of these laws are
prescriptive, as they act as a venue to govern our reasoning more accurately to arrive at a framework we call reality. They tell us what to expect within given parameters, so to speak.
There is a fundamental difference between the self-evident natures of these two things. The universe itself is an objective entity and is demonstrably true as a result of the primacy of existence axiom. It isn't dependent on a consciousness or perception to keep it going. It will continue to do what it does without any lifeform's perception of it.
What you're suggesting is the primacy of consciousness - an axiom in which existence is necessarily dependent on a mind. This begs the question of how you determine what is real from imaginary, if existence is indeed dependent on a mind, and how you can conceivably arrive to that conclusion without contradiction or inconsistency.
4. Notice I didn't say consensus among Christians. There is no consensus of those believing in God (for the sake of argument, let's keep in monotheistic) at all. How many religions are there in the world? By the way, there are many Christians who would willingly reject your claim - the Westboro Baptist Church for example. They view God as a vengeful God who is indeed capable of hate and condemnation. I don't doubt some of our resident fundies would modify your selection of attributes somewhat.
And even if there was an agreed upon value for God the world over, a claim as grandiose as the one you put forth would still require the same extraordinary evidence as it would with countless other God claims.
Do you know why believers are more consistent? Because confirmation bias works well in groups - especially large ones. Patrons of evangelical megachurches seldom have any dissidents or alternative viewpoints of God. Who needs evidence when you have peer pressure, confirmation bias and social conformity?
