Maybe the Bible does not use your definition consistently.
You are pretty obviously going to look for any definition you can to oppose that of your opposition. I find in the Bible no definition for God that opposes my definition. And no, that doesn't mean that I am always right in my understanding of God.
You seem to be suggesting that claims always require to be supported. Obviously they do not.
Some claims require, in order to make a point, to be supported. You made such claim in post 257 and were unable to support it.
[28] Whether I have an explanation for the existence of existence if off topic.
[29] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
I don't know where you got the idea that I suggest claims always require support. That sounds more like your kind of thinking. I said: <<"All claims are assertions, in the end. Those that can boast back up --the back up claims are assertions, and so on. That is what you are doing. You assert I am asserting. You try to back it up, and I can do like you do, claim those too are mere assertions. Big deal. The fact is that existence exists. You have no explanation.[28] You have no defense for your position. You refuse to consider explanations --they are assertions.[29]">>
Following is post 257. What is the claim you are referring to?
<<"Now THAT is the point.
We as humans love to take a word like 'Jealous' anthropomorphically, then we swing wide the other way: "Why would omnipotence care about insignificant idols, anyway?" So we come up with "God makes no sense."
But look how silly that is! We make him like us in our assessment and then complain because he is acting like us!">>
28. Perhaps if we had a central claim we were disputing, I could tell better what what is and isn't off topic. But that is a sweet defense when you have no answer --"That's off topic."
29. At least opinions, and pretty well guessed at too! Stalling for time, or just out of options?
Usually Christians pretend they can present evidence for their claims.
Strange. Usually the accusation is that Christians eschew any need for evidence.
[26] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
[27] What a surprise.
26. Haha! Can you support that statement?
27. The fact I gave no answer might have been because I was running short of time, or didn't deem the question worthy of an answer. Or I might have hit 'post reply' not realizing there was more below, out of sight, that I hadn't answered. I don't recall what this was about.
[30] Yahweh does not appear omnipotent, but he could be faking weakness.
First Cause is a deceptive name for something omnipotent as it suggest that it was the cause of the universe, while that may not be the case. Furthermore there could be more than one omnipotent being, depending on how one defines omnipotence.
I don't see anywhere Yahweh is faking weakness, nor appearing less than omnipotent. The fact First Cause doesn't behave according to your notions means only that your notions are presumptive. First Cause is indeed the cause of the Universe, either directly or through means of secondary causes.
There can be only one omnipotent. What definition would suggest otherwise?