Is god real?

You are either a troll, extremely stubborn, or simply uneducated with regards to how logic works

God: capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality

If you don't accept that, you are the one revealing your arbitrariness, not me. There is nothing you will accept as evidence, so trying to convince you is a waste of of time.

If a dictionary is not evidence to the meaning of a word, what is?

Feeling pretty smug here. Insults against me fall flat, my position has the highground.

If God is The Ultimate Reality or Supreme Being ss I, the church, and the dictionary support, that makes an atheist toward this God a NIHILIST.

It is entirely consistent with the philosophy of a nihilist to embrace arbitrariness and make pretense as if they have any ground to stand on. After all, if there is no Truth, whatever they say is as equally valid as anything else!

I have already explained to you, why that definition does not work. That is Merriam webster's definition, we both agreed that Oxford's was preferred. And the only interpretation that supported your claim was fallacious and I explained why it was. You are trying to convince me here, and you have no fulfilled your BoP. As i have already explained.

No I do not accept Merriam Webster's definition whenever Oxford provides a contradicting one. You seem to be a preacher, not actually validly addressing my points and talking past me.

I have specifically given you reasoning why every one of your arguments are invalid, and you have not properly responded. Do that and maybe you'll have something to talk about. 

"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs-no 'thing-in-itself.' This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind."

Oxford does not contradict Merriam Webster, you simply have a bad understanding of English.

Ultimate Reality and Supreme Being mean the same thing.

By the way, you don't have any valid points. You are simply being incredulous.

Whenever you cherry-pick the definitions, yes, what I'm saying is that definitionally: Oxford has more authority than Merriam Webster. Also, no, whenever you actually interpret the definition in a way that isn't assuming your conclusion and actually find the best fitting definition of each word, you are incorrect.

I am presenting the understanding that is consistent with Church tradition. But not even just Christianity, other religions as well.

No amount of sophistry on your end will change the fact that you are simply being incredulous

And wrong.

Entirely consistent with atheism to put a wrecking ball to a straw man god, declaring victory over The One True God, that is, The Supreme Being, The Ultimate Reality.

If you are claiming that the Christian god fits that definition then you are even more wrong. Because that god does not fit the definition of the observable universe 

I am not a pantheist.

And you don't know the Christian God, you are superstitious. You will never know the Christian God because you don't care to know. You think you already know.

The Ultimate Reality precedes the universe.

The Ultimate Reality gives existence to the universe, not the other way around. 

The Orthodox view is closer to panentheism than pantheism.

So to clarify, the Christian god is not defined the same as the pantheist god? As in, it is not the supreme or ultimate reality? Because if I interpret the definition of how you would like me too, that means either that just isn't something that exists definitionally or it just the observable universe.

*Also I'd just like to note, I got a medal because of how much I've posted here, which is ironic*

Pantheism is a conception of God.

Not the same thing as what God means.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.

You equate that with the universe. I do not. However, as long as you confuse the terminology, we can't talk about this meaningfully.

Acknowledge God, and then we can talk about the nature of God.

Something doesn't need to be observed or known to exist.

Existence precedes knowledge or observation of existence.

Not only have you not demonstrated that your god even is that ultimate reality (which isn't even the same as supreme being), but now your saying that the ultimate reality preceded the universe? I mean if its just reality to its extreme then it's always existed, sure it preceded the universe, but in that case then you really couldn't apply it to a god, because the definition would be applying to concepts and not beings. 

I'll only accept a god's existence if you demonstrate them beyond using your semantic argument, which is flawed in the first place.

My God is not a concept.

It is The Ultimate Reality.

That is, reality as it truly actually is.

Not a god, but God.

Big difference.

And there is no doubt concerning the existence of God. Accept God as a given, then we can talk about the nature of God, conceptions, ideas, and the like. But even we do not mistake conceptions and explanations of God for God.

Rather we simply say this. Accept that the word we are using refers to that which is beyond words. That The Word is God. Otherwise, no meaningful discussion can follow.

If you do not accept my terminology, I can't demonstrate anything. It would be impossible to understand what I am saying.

The problem, is that you are just telling me to accept your proposition. The thing is, propositions do not work that way, and you know that. That's why you engaged with my first argument after all. I will not just agree to a syllogism which presumes it's conclusion, that is a fallacy. 

Oh, would you look at that, you got it! Yes, you have to demonstrate your definition is the most accurate or logically consistent - as the claim that god is axiomatically true is an incredible claim, it will require incredible evidence, evidenced you have not validly provided. 

Rather, your overreliance on reason has lead you to deny the very thing that gives reason its foundation.

I am not making an argument. I am making an assertion. An assertion of what is meant by the word I am using in the context of what I believe. I am not going to budge, because to compromise on this would be to argue from a fallacious position.

The Truth is not arrived at through reasoning or knowns. Rather, without Truth there is nothing known, and reason itself is meaningless.

Everything about my faith is given movement through the knowledge that God is The Truth.

How else could it be meaningful to love God with all of one's heart, soul, mind, and strength? To love The Truth as God brings correction and growth. To love anything else as God makes one delusional.

Yes, yes you are, and therefore you have adopted a burden of proof! 

The context you believe from is fallacious! Because you are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning! It is not overreliance on reasoning, it using reasoning correctly!

Your knowledge that god is truth? That's not knowledge that's an assumption based on faulty reasoning. The rest is a blatant no true Scotts man

You have no argument. You are the one arguing semantics, not me. I am asserting what a word means. You are debating the meaning of the word, not me.

I am merely standing in solidarity with what is the fact of the matter, not being tricked into engaging in a stupid debate.

I don't need to present any other evidence than I have, because if you don't accept the evidence that I already have, no evidence will convince you. Your position is not a reasonable one, but an arbitrary one. You are simply making pretense of reason.

You don't have a valid argument. 

No argument against God stands. Only a fool denies God.