I didn't mention anything about being omnipotent. Is that the best you can do?
You claimed to be "god", no? Or do you have your own special definition for that term?
Besides considering the varying definitions of god, there is no such definition that suggests god must be omnipotent in a sense of awareness. Those are purely for certain religions.
You must have a very good sense of humor if you actually believe God can be overcome by any object or person He created.
Think of it this way, if a book has all the knowledge of the universe in it and it existence is required for reality to exist, it's an omnipotent god then isn't it? Because it hold the potential to shape reality in any way it sees fit, yet it has no mind to do so itself. Then there's a being that has no mental capacity to be sentient or intelligent, yet it governs the nature of reality at all times, is that not god? Even though it is the sole creator and shaper of reality?
I've never seen any object (let alone a book) create and shape reality in the way you're describing. Have you?
Heh, Christianity harbours such primitive concepts on how god somehow suffers the affliction of the human condition. You fail to comprehend even remotely that should a god exist, it would have motivations, emotions and behaviours completely alien to us. Faith would mean nothing as we would be nothing more than molecular machines to it's eyes.
Ok, "god". Have you figured out what my family name is? Or do you still need more time?
If you can't even know what my family name is (a very simple request for a "god" like you to do), then why should I trust what you speculate here?
I mean why rely on faith, unless of course, god is a mere abstraction that depends on the existence of faith in him. Should such faith be lost, god would then be destroyed. This would then mean god is destructible, hence not really a true god.
What kind of reasoning is this? If you have faith in someone (not God), does this mean his existence depends on your faith in him?
I mock the word god because it either suffers the issues of paradoxes or redundancy when you spend time thinking about it.
Ok, keep mocking that word. I won't stop you. I promise.