You arent addressing the understanding. You are only pointing out one way the concept has been presented.
It has been presented in many ways. Comical, vaporous, contradictory, and the common "you have to believe in order to understand".
But they aren't saying God is undetectable. They put forth a forth all kinds of evidence, for a young earth, old earth, evolution, no evolution, theistic evolution, variable speeds of light, intelligent design, and the effectiveness (or not) of prayer. It's just not very good evidence...
If you think that the definition of God comes from taking mythology literal then we can move from there but the definition still wouldnt be a character in a book. If you are building your understanding from taking myth literally then it would be nice to see where you picked up that thinking or if you are just working with an assumption.
I am trying to avoid assumptions. I think the single most reliable pathway to truth is to accept those things that are demonstrated through empirical evidence. So far, no one has demonstrated that God is more than a character in a book.
To my knowledge I have presented the most clear and concise definition, from the earliest Christian thinkers to do so.
Yes, but those definitions are post hoc rationalizations that start with a belief in God, and fail to first establish the
possibility of the existence of gods. I have seen no reason to presume this possibility, or accept a definition that does so, until that possibility has been established.
God, as described, might be impossible. Can an omniscient god change its mind?
You have no definition because you are basing your understanding on what people say about God on a message board. Do you think that is a rational approach to understanding Christianity or the concept of God?
I do not think it is rational to presuppose
the possibility for the existence of "God" or "god" or "gods" before I have had a chance to evaluate the evidence.
Would you presuppose the possibility of the existence of fairies, before you understood what they were?
Nope. Earlier in this thread the idea of nothing into something was argued for how God could change and I took some time trying to explain why that wasnt the case because nothing doesnt actually exist.
I missed that. What was the difference or a link please?
Depending on the context, the terms can be interchangeable, but for clarity, I consider the universe to be everything
at any time (if 'time' can be applied as we think), and the cosmos to be everything that is
now in our universe.
Age and size of the cosmos
If I got rid of all the anthropomorphic understandings of God I would still consider what I am describing to be God and the proper label to use.
But you won't get rid of them.
Just because it is common to understand God like a person doesnt mean that is correct. If you think there is something in the creed that is specific to a superstitious understanding of God I will take a look.
You will need to show me that God is more than just superstition.
The other options that I am aware of seem unreasonable, is why I believe what I believe.
You are reasoning why
you believe.
Try this: Define God from the perspective of someone that does not believe.
I have seen it done, in a comprehensive manner, and I accept it. I don't use it as my working definition as it is a bit bulky. I will let you have a shot at it before I post the link.