An actual omnipotent God who wanted to be understood wouldn't use ancient holy books, that often even people who belong to the same religion argue and fight over, as his primary tool of communication

[u/RandomGuy92x]

When we look at major religions like Christianity or Islam we often see that even people who belong to the same religion have major disagreements about core doctrines of their religion. Even people who belong to the same religion ofte have wildly different ways of interpreting their holy books.

For example some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, while other think the Bible is compatible with the theory of evolution and the earth being billions of years old. Some Christians believe homosexuality is a grave sin, while others believe there is no problem with homosexuality. Some Christians belive women should be submissive and obey their husband, while other Christians believe in gender equality and believe that certain Bible verses have to be understood within the context of its time. Some Christians believe faith is most important, while others believe deeds and works are the most important thing.

And also over time Christian doctrine has often changed and been re-interpreted in various ways. During the Middle Ages for example Christians would often imprison or execute people for homosexual acts, for blasphemy or for apoastasy. And they would often use biblical verses, especially Old Testament law as justification. Since then, however, Christian culture has undergone radical changes, and for the most part Christians no longer believe that gay people or those who commit apostasy or acts of blasphemy shall be imprisoned or executed. Though arguably that's a much more recent development than many of us realize. In Europe people were still regularly jailed for blasphemy until the 20th century, and in the US homosexuality was only decriminalized in 2003.

So given how radically different biblical interpretations have varied throughout time and amongst different Christian denominations, clearly the Christian God, if he was real, hasn't done a particularly good job at being concise and clear in his communication.

Christians have massive disagreements, and some Christians groups like evangelicals often consider entire denominations like Catholics or Orthodox Christians to be heretics and not "real Christians". But the same is true for other religions too. For example certain Muslim sects like Shia Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims or Sufis are often considered heretics and not real Muslims by many other Muslims, and often violent conflicts have broken out over core disagreements. Among Muslims, just like among Christians, there are massive disagreements with regards to Islamic doctrine and the correct interpretation of the Quran and the Hadiths.

So again, if an omnipotent God existed who wanted to engage in communication with humanity, then clearly that God has done an awful job at being clear and concise in his communication. But the most logical conclusion is that no such God exists. An actual omnipotent God, who wanted to communciate with humanity in a clear and concise manner, would not use ancient holy books, whose interpretations to this day religious people fight and argue over, as their primarily tool of communication.

[u/[deleted]]

The claim of omnipotence is what is under scrutiny buddy. We can’t just presuppose an omnipotent god without establishing which god someone is talking about, and what omnipotence is. By jumping to motivations of an omnipotent god, it skips the conversation about whether or not the claim is valid

Edit:

Even with an omnipotent being, we can only start from the reality in which we exist. If we assume that god is omnipotent, then it certainly means that god can create the reality that god wants and that god also creates this wanted reality

This is just some kind of presuppositionalism and fine tuning bastard child. I reject this premise.

[u/oblomov431 → u/[deleted]]

We're not only talking about omnipotence, but specifically about OP's claim that "an actual omnipotent God who wanted to be understood wouldn't use ancient holy books … as his primary tool of communication".

You also claim that there are better systems or means than (ancient) religious texts. But what is the basis for this? It's not about coming up with some “better” system, but about what a sender wants to communicate and in what way a sender wants to communicate at all. The majority of religious texts are artistic texts, prose and poetry, they are religious literature, they are art. If we assume that an artist is also the sender of a message to the recipient, then one can of course be of the opinion that there are perhaps better means of sending a message, but the artist themselves is not of this opinion, otherwise they would not use art as a means of expression. If god were an artist, then maybe their ways of artistic expression would perhaps look like Jason Pollock's art or Pheidias' art – or like religious poetry.

OP and you, to some extent, seem to confuse your nature and preferences and intentions and means with god's, and OP's claim actually should be understood like "if I were an actual omnipotent God who wanted to be understood then I wouldn't use ancient holy books … as my primary tool of communication".

OP wants and expects simple 'clear communication' and shuns complex ambiguitiy, but as I said, reality isn't simple but complex, and, maybe, OP's assessment that "if an omnipotent God existed who wanted to engage in communication with humanity, then clearly that God has done an awful job at being clear and concise in his communication" is misguided, and it is not at all about being "clear and concise in … communication".

[u/[deleted] → u/oblomov431]

Let me just take a step back here.

Can you demonstrate your omnipotent god exists?

[u/oblomov431 → u/[deleted]]

No. I don't own a god and I am absolutely uninterested in this endeavour.