What do you believe and why?

It isn't just us humans. It is beyond anything to know everything about a thing.

Of that, I am certain.

Probably.

It is impossible to be otherwise.

So quantum physics would seem to suggest.

That's quite a firm stand you are taking there. How can you be so certain?

I cannot be certain. All I said is that quantum physics would seem to suggest that there is no certainty. I do not know that it would be impossible for any entity to have objective certainty about something but it doesn't seem to be the case that any observable entity has achieved such certainty  about anything. I cannot say more than that without committing a black swan fallacy.

I don't think it is a black swan fallacy at all. I am saying it is impossible for an entity to perceive a thing from all conceivable vantage points and in all of it's potential physical and energy states at all points in time simultaneously. If something is impossible, one can be certain it does not exist.

I have been very consistent that it's about the relationship.

Having a relationship with an encyclopedia full of facts isn't going to make you a more honest, sincere, and competent person. 

Loving The Truth purifies you.

So you miss the point the get go because you think I have to prove that The Truth exists. You have adopted a foolish position. If you believe in trurh, you believe in The Truth. If you deny The Truth, you don't really believe in truths. If you can't see this, I'm not going to convince you of anything, because you have adopted an insane position.

The truth is the truth because truth is true and no truth could exist without the truth. 

Surely you see how this could be mistaken for a circular argument.

You have included truth tautalogically in your definition so yes if your god exists then there can be no truth without this god. The problem is that you haven't actually demonstrated that this god exists (and I'm not sure how we could) so we don't know if truth can exist without said deity simply by virtue of it being epistemologically beyond us to say if this god exists

You are not accepting that The Trurh is my God. You think I am arbitrarily using words.      

Do you believe The Truth? You believe my God exists. If you don't believe my God, you don't believe in truth. There is no debate about this. It's simply a matter of accepting that what I'm saying is actually what I mean instead of making it something else.

See, you think, when I say "The Truth" I'm talking about something false. 

The idea that you can prove that The Truth exists is ridiculous, because if you don't believe in truth, you don't believe in evidence. 

Merriam Webster defines God as...

capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality

It seems that mirriam Webster has the same  problem you have, which is that they have included a tautology in their definition. So if god exists as Miriam Webster defines god then you would be correct but god as defined by Miriam Webster has not been demonstrated. The other possibility of course is that no being meeting that description exists.

Explain what a tautology is and where you are seeing it.

Now where is it?

Your definition is only valid if accepted tautalogically.

(Example: god must be real because he is reality)

All we can really say is that god must exist if he is reality

There is no if, this is the meaning of the word.

If you don't accept this, you aren't even talking about the same thing as me.

Yes, that means that atheism is a really stupid position to take.

And you aren't even respecting the definition now, because you keep saying "god" instead of "God". It's a different word. 

No god(s) god God or GOD has ever been demonstrated to me.

You are aware that many fictional beings have definitions?

Fictional beings aren't defined to be THE ULTIMATE REALITY.

One might be.

It is not God unless it is real, because reality is literally the defining characteristic of God.

Reality is not the defining characteristic of leprechauns, unicorns, goblins, etc.

There is no argument against God, which is why atheist arguments are contingent on making God something else. Arguments against gods have been made by monotheists for millennia.

There is no argument against God, and it is foolish and self defeating to even try. You can't argue that is true that there is no such thing as truth without making an obvious and fatal contradiction.

Even you must admit that this One God is real, and there can be no denying of this. It is foolishness to deny this God, and I am certain you are reasonable enough to come to this knowledge.

That god is truth is a claim and I have no reason to accept your claim before you have demonstrated it. Truth might just be what is and that may not include god or God or even GOD.

You clearly don't understand how definitions work.

God literally is The Truth.

I understand this can't be reconciled with your atheism. You would be better off abandoning your superstition position. Aversion is a poison that leads to suffering.

Repent and believe the good news, that The Truth is God, and The Truth is what sets you free.

You clearly don't realize that definition are made up. It's true you could make up a word right now and assign it a definition. 

God is literally just a word and we decide what words mean. 

In other words, you could be talking about rocks when you are using the word tree.

Gotcha. The merriam webster collegiate dictionary is not authoritative to defining terms.

Well, you are not defining my language so you in your haughtiness can justify yourself holding a stupid and superstitiouus belief you are unwilling to admit you are wrong about. If you want to intellectually masturbate, go ahead and suffer for your delusions. I'll have no more part in your wickedness.

But I will pray you pull your head out from your behind and come to the knowledge of The Truth.

If you can demonstrate your claim I would have no choice but to accept it but just saying god is truth does not demonstrate that there is a god or that said god is truth. If you really care whether or not I believe you then demonstrate your claim.

What would you accept as proof?

You after all think that definitions are arbitrary. You probably wouldn't respect scripture or the writings of theologians either.

So what will you accept?

The proof is in believing that I am not lying to you and that I am actually giving you good information...

Like THE TRUTH IS GOD.

Not what you think is true. Not what I think is true. What is actually true. That is what God is.

Since you won't accept this, you will get nothing else. You want me to prove that your superstitious conception of God is true, and that simply won't happen. You have too much baggage. Get rid of it, and accept the definition.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality means God.

What would you accept as proof? You are demanding a miracle. That's what it looks like. 

I have no concept of god I don't believe in god(s) we are discussing your concept of god. A concept which you do not seem able to present physical evidence of. The earth orbits the sun. That is true. Is god That? Things that are true? Because that is not a being at all a far as I can tell. That has no apparent intellect or animus. It makes no descisions and does not care about us or our beliefs as far as I can tell. Is god really basically a nonentity?

When we got to this point before you said that no god is not that kind of truth but instead etrnal truth but you were then unable to reference any eternal truth other than god. That is a tautalogical and circular argument.

I don't believe in a god, I believe in God.

See, your superstitions come from bad english.

But since you don't respect the dictionary, I can't help you. Language is arbitrary, right?

Can you demonstrate a practical difference between those concepts?