There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Everything that is conceived and perceived has being (by definition); therefore they must exist.

Right, also regarding your position on "the original intent of the author"...

It's funny how you seem to think you know the INTENT behind everybody else's statements BETTER than "the original authors".

If you're speaking to the actual, original author, it would seem prudent to simply ask them what their intent was.

No need to guess.

So whether what God wrote

Three primary types of existence and you got one of them;

I didn't get "one of them," because "types" of existence are irrelevant. My position isn't that God exists in a type of way; my position is that God exists.

PLease share when you can address the specifics as presented to you

No. None of that which you state is relevant. Stay on topic; if you cannot, then move on.

Everything that is conceived and perceived has being (by definition); therefore they must exist. It's an unsavory logical consequence, but frequent mentions of "Big Foot" undermine only the arguments which propose that God exists and Big Foot necessarily must not. To my understanding, no one here has made such an argument.

Or perhaps, you're equating the belief in God to the belief in Big Foot. That is, God is an "urban legend"; this assertion is necessarily misinformed because, as I've gathered, you believe in neither; therefore, you have little understanding on what it entails to believe in either, much less equate them. In "reality," you're just equating your disbelief in God to your disbelief in Big Foot, and are attempting to hold your opponents responsible for that.

All you have to offer is a false narrative.

Most people believe it is reasonable to say "BigFoot doesn't exist".  You are the only person I've ever encountered that insists that BigFoot exists.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable (if not mandatory) to believe in a logically necessary originator and sustainer of all things (NOUMENON) which I also believe is fair to call "god" (I consider myself a GNOSTIC DEIST by the way).

HOWeVer, I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what is REAL-TRUE-FACTS and what is (indistinguishable from) PURE-IMAGINATION.

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what EXISTS and what (is indistinguishable from) DOES NOT EXIST.

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between FACT and (what is indistinguishable from) OPINION.

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between QUANTA and (what is indistinguishable from) QUALIA.

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between TRUTH and (what is indistinguishable from) LIES.

In order to call something a REAL-TRUE-FACT, it MUST be independently and empirically verifiable and Quantifiable and indisputable and logically necessary.

All of which is informed by conception which bears no fundamental difference from pure imagination.

Most people believe it is reasonable to say "BigFoot doesn't exist".  You are the only person I've ever encountered that insists that BigFoot exists.

Ad populum arguments do not inform veracity, unless it's about the number of people itself.

I believe it is perfectly reasonable (if not mandatory) to believe in a logically necessary originator and sustainer of all things (NOUMENON) which I also believe is fair to call "god" (I consider myself a GNOSTIC DEIST by the way).

So your position is one against the Biblical description of God, then?

HOWeVer, I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what is REAL-TRUE-FACTS and what is (indistinguishable from) PURE-IMAGINATION.

Why? What's the essential difference between the two?

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between what EXISTS and what (is indistinguishable from) DOES NOT EXIST.

How can you distinguish between that which does and does not exist when its is impossible (logically incoherent) to ascertain information on that which does not exist?

I also believe it is important to very clearly distinguish between TRUTH and (what is indistinguishable from) LIES.

If there isn't a logically coherent objective experience, then what is a lie?

In order to call something a REAL-TRUE-FACT, it MUST be independently and empirically verifiable and Quantifiable and indisputable and logically necessary.

All of which is informed by conception which bears no fundamental difference from pure imagination. You're essentially using pure imagination as a metric for what is real, true and fact.

Move along, sir. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I am a huge fan of pointing out logical fallacies, so I appreciate that, HOWEeveR, in this particular case, it's an appeal to COMMON-GROUND.

I'm not suggesting "BigFoot doesn't exist" BECAUSE most people agree.  I'm simply trying to establish COMMON-GROUND.

There doesn't appear to be a single, unified, coherent "Christian description of god".

Each person I've encountered that claims to be a Christian, has their own, personal, unique and often peculiar "description of god".

Which they, for some strange reason, seem to hate making EXPLICIT.  I mean, god = god = god = god and if you don't know that then you must be (insert ad hominem).  Which is a naked appeal to ignorance (secret-knowledge/common-sense).

HOWeEver, I happen to agree about 99.999% with Mopac's (Eastern Orthodox Christian) description of god.

A real staircase will allow you to descend safely.

An imaginary staircase will allow you to fall to your death.

You're conflating "nothingness" (which is impossible) with what is unverifiable.

In order to properly EXIST, a phenomenon must be empirically verifiable.

A lie is an intentionally deceptive statement (claim) that presents either an incomplete or partially or wholly inaccurate account.

Coherent abstracts don't EXIST in the exact same sense that rocks and trees EXIST.  We often say, "they exist abstractly".

Lol. Brilliant.

I think 3RU7AL is telling you what he believes so that you can correct your beliefs.

What is Mopac's description of God?

There doesn't appear to be a single, unified, coherent "Christian description of god".

However, I happen to agree about 99.999% with Mopac's (Eastern Orthodox Christian) description of god.

Each person I've encountered that claims to be a Christian, has their own, personal, unique and often peculiar "description of god".

Which they, for some strange reason, seem to hate making EXPLICIT.

Coherent abstracts don't EXIST in the exact same sense that rocks and trees EXIST.  We often say, "they exist abstractly".

Yes but they exist. We can dispute the difference between abstract and reality but the primary point is that they do exist, however you decide to modify the term existence. Now, I would argue that every subjective experience is informed and irremovable from abstractions (e.g. your reference to the staircase and falling to one's death.) The difference between life and death is abstract; the fact that you name that particular matter a staircase is abstract. The differences are informed by meaning, and meaning is fundamentally imaginative/abstract. So stating that BigFoot is abstract, and therefore he doesn't [properly] exist, would be like saying meaning is abstract; therefore it does not properly exist; and if your meaning doesn't exist, your sense or value of difference doesn't exist; and if that doesn't exist then what is it you're perceiving?

Empirical verification is no less a subjective experience. And when you reduce the argument to its fundamental premise, it's essentially one of meaning. Empirical verification has meaning, I don't dispute that. You choose a definition which coincides with that meaning.

Can we agree that the "YHWH" does NOT exist in an empirically verifiable or logically necessary CONCRETE way?

Can we agree that the "YHWH" DOES exist in an ABSTRACT and hypothetical way?

Let me also ask: is the mind empirically verifiable?

The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary.

Dubito, ergo, cogito, ergo, SUM.

You're attempting to argue the two (concrete vs abstract) as mutually exclusive,

The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary.

Dubito, ergo, cogito, ergo, SUM.

That's not what I asked. I know the mind is logically necessary. Is it empirically verifiable?

Not exactly.

Concrete is a subcategory of Abstract.

"Purely Abstract" denotes a concept with no Concrete component.

The "mind" (much like NOUMENON) is logically necessary, but not empirically verifiable.

Each person can only verify their own mind, through direct experience (private GNOSIS).

Attempting to verify someone else's mind is basically a subjective value judgement (Turing-Test/Voight-Kampff).

If concrete is a subcategory of abstract, then what is the (epistemological) significance in creating a stark distinction between the two (i.e. purely abstract and concrete)? Is it not just a value-based judgement?