I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

You cannot simply substitute one for the other in the same way that you're criticizing my suggestion to arbitrarily slap the term "absolute truth" onto "God," which, by the way, was more of a rebuttal against your original position which wields the FSM as the counterargument to the assertion that God exists.  However, I can slap "absolute truth" onto "God" more easily than you can slap FSM onto God.

The FSM has 'spaghetti' and 'monster' in its title, both of which are forms, thereby invoking constraint and eliminating the possibility of omnipresence.  Same thing goes for the space teapot.  Both of these are things that are assumed to be capable of being observed, but for which we simply have no idea where to look.  Conversely, 'god,' whose title invokes no form or condition -- but does invoke omnipotence -- would be able to place constraints upon itself and become an FSM, for example.  This is also why God is referred to as 'infinite,' and it's because infinite quite literally means "a lack of definition."   God as a whole, by definition, is incapable of being observed, which again would refer to a posteriori knowledge.  Instead, God's existence can only be argued for/against based upon a priori knowledge, or knowledge that is independent of observation and experience.  As a result, invoking the FSM and space teapot is irrelevant because they're simply inapplicable -- a priori knowledge tells us that invoking an analogue of god requires invoking a formless entity, so you might as well just stick with the word 'god' and argue against that (else you're the one making arbitrary, irrelevant word substitutions).
 
You mention semantics, and a semantic argument is not necessarily unsound.  The reason is because language is not only a descriptor, but it is also that which is descripted -- always.  Absolutely anything that is described with language is also a language unto itself as it meets all criteria of the algebraic structure of language (i.e rules of syntax/law, content, and grammar that mediates between the two to make information meaningful).  Semantic arguments are simply a different type of argument, and they remain valid if consistent and applied in the appropriate context.  

To this end, again, you would be better off not trying to find an analogy to the 'god' concept at all.  Also, remember that all of this is only an argument for why the FSM and teapot are poor counterarguments to the assertion God exists, and not an argument for God's existence itself.

TL;DR: In a sentence, the FSM and teapot are invalid despite what you think of Russel because the proposition depends solely on observation, i.e. being able to prove the thing exists through empiricism, a method that's off-the-table for exploring the concept of God.

The semantic debate began over your definition of mono/polytheistic, but unfortunately you keep bastardizing and broadening your misuse of terminologies and concepts over the course of this debate to further your argument, therefore I decline to debate this any further.

it's shit like this that spoils the internet, it's kinda like searchin google for a fix.. not one result has the answer, cause whilst OP's ask, there's always numpty attention seeker's who are so distracting that the topic is probably closed for going off topic.. when I say this is a pile of shit, it really is, I mean, arguing points is one thing, but that fuckin idiot wi his fantastical lunacy takes mair than the fuckin cake.. am surprised he does'nt realise we see him and think.. fuck, we'll come back in another week when his dribbble runs out.. nope, still gotta come back and fuck up some damn interesting stuff.. with nothing more than a lunatic's perspective of well, was gonna say life, but he's clearly dead.. (brain)

It's called the Holy Bible because it is full of holes; it is your responsibility to fill those holes and get at the actual truth being referenced.

How can you be so sure what is GOD? Have you met him/it/she? It is impossible to tell.

Before I start on my rant, I know a lot of us don't see eye to eye on this stuff, but.. I enjoy hearing the perspective and certainly respect everyone's choice to believe in anything they want... it's what makes us human.

With that said, in the thread I've seen many people saying that a person who believes in God doesn't need evidence, they just need faith, I think that's a bit belittling... In reality, the same can be said for someone who believes in evolution... that may evoke a chuckle, but hear me out... the fact is (and please, prove me wrong if you know something different), science has yet to provide one concrete piece of evidence of a true evolution of one species evolving into another totally different species, which is what true evolution is. Adaptation over time (not to be confused with evolution), yes, loads of evidence for that (Darwin's observations of the finches beaks changing over time to adapt to changes in the environment being the one example often brought up).. but at the end of the day, the finches were still finches, they were still birds, still the same species. That was not the evolution of species jumping from one kind to another, that's adaptation and science can verify that through observation. What it cannot provide, however, is cold, hard evidence of one species transforming from one to another, which is where evolutionists say is where man came from. So with no proof of that ever happening to support that view, then it also requires... faith.

But yeah, from my perspective, I actually see just as many gigantic leaps and bounds for a person believing in evolution, because there's simply no concrete evidence of it ever occurring.. no logical answer to how there was nothing and nothing exploded and created all the complex elements needed to create life and the entire universe... many more examples, but... it's a gigantic stretch for the imagination. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the biggest, most well-known proponents of evolution can't provide any scientific answers, so he's going by faith in what he believes, and that's good enough for him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rgtN0pCMQ

It's the "beyond anyone's comprehension or judgment" part that I'm having trouble with here.  I would agree that in a literal sense, this omnipotent ability is beyond comprehension.  But in a conceptual sense, it isn't.

Something interesting I've learned about logic is that it is hologrammatic in structure, e.g. in the same way that spatial dimensions are holographic in structure.  For example, the third dimension is the infinite sum of possible combinations of the second dimension, the fourth dimension is the infinite sum of all possible combinations  of the third dimension, etc.  Similarly, logic can be conceptualized as operating similarly on higher- and lower-order dimensional planes.  For example, a higher-order logic can be used to explore a lower-order logic function because it yields a vantage point from which one can comprehensively view everything going on in the lower-order level.  Conceptually, God, if it exists, operates at the highest possible, prime level of logic.  We need a way to occupy the same vantage point to talk about God rationally, and this is possible.

Imagine if I draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, which would be the representation of a 4th-dimensional structure on a 2nd-dimension piece of paper interpreted by 3rd-dimensional beings, us.  By taking a higher-order dimension (i.e. the 4th dimension) and literally thrusting it down into the 2nd-dimension (i.e. the piece of paper), we can gain insight into the 4th-dimension even though we are only 3rd-dimensional beings who have no direct ability to perceive the 4th-dimension from the appropriate vantage point.  Accordingly, we had to 'pretend' that we were 5th-dimensional beings analyzing the 4th-dimension in the same way that we as 3rd-dimensional beings analyze the 2nd-dimension.  

If we can do this with logic, i.e. by 'pretending' that we already occupy a higher vantage point by thrusting higher-order levels of logic below us in the same way that we thrust the 4th-dimensional tesseract onto a 2nd-dimensional plane on paper, then we have it made -- we then have a method to rationalize about God.

Lower-order levels of logic are essentially the exact same as higher-order ones, just infinitely smaller. It's my opinion that this is what is meant in the Bible when it says man was made in God's image.  I believe that our logic and mind functions exactly the same as god, except at an infinitely-smaller level.  Logic is a closed system, and inasmuch as we use logic as the only basis to rationalize about the Universe, it is possible to construct a perfectly self-contained logical theory of the Universe which would essentially equate to a God-level theory of reality.  The only criteria is that it must be self-contained and consistent throughout, and must be capable of explaining not only everything the Universe contains, but also itself.  Therefore, its structure must be self-reinforcing and circular such that any attempt to deny it only reaffirms its existence.  

An example of such a self-reinforcing and circular argument is the argument for absolute truth, for any attempt to deny absolute truth, e.g. "There is no absolute truth" automatically invokes the unspoken assertion, "It is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Of, if someone said, "There is more than one truth," or, "Truth is relative," it is the same as saying "It is the absolute truth there is more than one truth," or, "It is the absolute truth that truth is relative."

I believe you were referring to -

The belief being, that god would need to explore his surroundings. As in, god chose to "forget" at the moment of the Big Bang.
However, there is no exploring, as there is no beginning or end. No not knowing, then knowing or vice versa. I believe this god character is all (always) knowing, if it truly exists.

From an agnostic point of view, god is infinitely unimaginable. Therefore, you cannot make assumptions of god, like "I believe that our logic and mind functions exactly the same as god." There's infinite levels in the "God-level theory of reality". Ones that you literally can't even imagine.

Using the multi-verse theory as an example. An infinite number of universes having an infinite amount of possibilities. You won't ever come close to imagining the unimaginable, even if you started right now and thought about it for the rest of time. (ie. The laws of physics and time don't exist.) Universes where anything you can imagine does not exist, replaced by the unimaginable. 'Words can't describe' kinds of unimaginable things, whereby you would de facto be in the wrong if you even tried using words to describe it.

All there really is to say is... Have a nice day.