What has convinced you

I'm afraid that I must reject your definition as unclear in that case. Reality is reality and god(s) are ficticious. If you wish to discuss this further we can but if I cannot be certain that you are not engaged in an equivocation fallacy then I don't see how we can have an intellectual conversation on the subject.

I know that your holy dictionary is the worst argument for the existence of gods ever presented.

I do not know. But not knowing does not give us licence to make things up. In that case the intelectualy honest answer is I don't know not god is reality. I told you the definition I can accept and the addition that I cannot accept u til proven and you have declined both to retract your additional claims and to understand the difference between the definition what is really true and actually exists and unsubstantiated claims about that reality.

My claim is The Ultimate Reality is what God means.

If I made any other claims, they are irrelevant to this, and if you are denying God because you don't see things the same way as me, I'd say that is a really stupid reason to deny God.

Provided that is the entirety of the definition I can accept it but that means you cannot claim that reality is good or evil or concious or creative or loving or just or any other adjectives whatever without demonstrating it as true. Can you meet this criteria?

I would expect no more.

So you retract any claim beyond your tautalogical definition?

I reject any claim for which there is insufficient evidence. I accept reality as we perceive it as a convenience and that some reality exists as an extension of I think therefore I am.

What is evidence to one is not evidence to another.

Do you really accept reality as "we" preceive it, or reality as you perceive it?

I'm afraid as I perceive it is all I am capable of accepting. You are correct that people accept different standards of evidence but you must admit that there is a difference between the evidence we have for the existence of gravity and the "evidence" associated with claims of the supernatural.

Definitions of supernatural courtesy Merriam-webster..

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

In other words, any order in the universe we are unaware of is considered to be supernatural.

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature"

Note that just because something appears to transcend the laws of nature does not imply that it does.

"attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)"

There are forces we can't see that have an effect on things. How does the radio work? Antenna television? Wifi? Hitherto unknown or imperceptible forces? 

-------

Most people are superstitious. People who think they are rejecting all forms of superstition tend to be, ironically, very superstitious themselves. Denying God, as an example, is very superstitious, but there are plenty of God deniers who like to flaunt their alleged rationality while mocking either real or perceived superstitions of others.

Superstitious:

That someone does not accept your claims about god/reality does not mean they do not accept reality. If someone refuses to call reality god/reality it does not mean they do not accept that reality is for lack of a better word real. It further does not mean that they refuse to understand that reality may be an illusion. Tell me how does referring to the same concept you mean without using the moniker of God make one superstitious? A rose by any other name after all. I'm not sure why calling reality god (capitalised or not) is even important to you. The definition "whatever really exists" does not tell us anything about what really exists and if the evidence points to a meaningless and uncaring void being most of the ultimate reality then we have no reason to think that it is more than a meaningless uncaring void with some stuff peppered through it. Let me say that again. I have no reason to believe that reality as I perceive it is real (and if it isn't then I cannot know anything aboit reality whatever full stop) but if it is then God would appear to be, based on available evidence, a meaningless uncaring void with some stuff peppered through it. That is based on your definition.

Also and just to be clear my intention has never been to mock you.

You understand reality as a meaningless and uncaring void, which is why when I say "reality" you interpret that as a meaningless and uncaring void.

We have different worldviews, and if you are to respect the worldview I have, you can't tell me what I mean when I say God. This is, after all, our word. 

Make sense?

I am not telling you what you mean you told me you meant reality as it is so if reality is an uncaring void then that is what you mean. It may be more than that but this is a poor hypothesis as we cannot test it.

Make sense?

As reality clearly contains things, it by definition could not be a void.

Yes strictly speaking it isn't a void but that is just semantics and it doesn't change my argument.

Fine I am not telling you what you mean you told me you meant reality as it is so if reality is uncaring and nearly empty but not technically a void then that is what you mean. It may be more than that but this is a poor hypothesis as we cannot test it.

Why would I accuse you of defining God for me when you accepted my definition? That is a misunderstanding.

I don't know what hypothesis you are referring to testing.

I was just adjusting my previous statement with more precise language at your request.

And we do not know what that is.

Knowledge of God is not God.

We still cannot know what it is and it may be no more than it appears. Any statement beyond existence exists that cannot be demonstrated can be dismissed and even observations backed by evidence may be no more than observations of an illusion.

Your definition is a tautology.

God is not what God is not.

Oh and look.

god is not what god is not.

Knowledge is fabrication.

Then how can we ever know any truth whatever?