What do you believe and why?

Language is arbitrary To a degree yes. Rock could have meant tree. Of course language is useless if we cannot agree on terms and I have no reason to accept that the being you are describing is necessary for things to exist or for facts to be true. 

That is a very strong stance are you certain? (Not about impossible things not existing that is tautalogically true I mean about the rest)

Will you accept merriam webster as the common ground source when it comes to the defining of terms? We must have some standard.

If no, we have nothing more to discuss. 

If you will accept that a definition is simply the common usage of a word and does not constitute the demonstration of a claim. Ancient Greek phylosephers classified people as flightless birds. It was a part of the definition of a person for them. I will accept Miriam Webster as a good starting point for acceptable definitions if you will accept that definitions can be flawed and inaccurate.

In other words, a definition is only good if you can accept it.

And you are absolutely against acknowledging God as anything as real.

I believe that The Truth is God. There is nothing you can do to overturn reality. My belief isn't going to change because you think you are some wizard who defines the language I am using in order to make it nonsensical.

My religion is Truth worship. You clearly don't believe in truth, because like the godless wizard you are, you think it's all arbitrary and that reality is what you can get away with.

Well, clearly you don't want me to tell you what I believe, you want to argue in vain with me. Well, I'm not interested in trying to educate someone who is unteachable because they already have it figured out.

Your argument sucks. Your argument is to point at a cow and call it a duck, and then accuse me of making tautologies.

Get real. 

A definition is actually only good if we can both accept it and even then only for the purposes of our discussions. When having a discussion with someone other than myself the two of you might accept different definitions.

Actually I am interested genuinely in your beliefs but you have already told me what you believe in this regard and now I am trying to puzzle out why. When you say god is real becaus god is reality that is what you believe not why. You've now brought up dictionary definitions. Ok so you believe that the dictionary definition is correct. Again that is what you believe not why. If you had claimed that god was a cow or a duck or a giraffe my questions would be similar, why do you believe that.

You ask how God is reality because you aren't accepting that my God is The Reality.

Instead you think all the baggage you have about God is what I'm saying is reality.

That isn't my claim. My claim is that when I say God, I am literally talking about the highest truth. I wouldn't say that true things are highest truth. I would say that true things have their reality by highest truth.

If you can't make sense of it, it is because you aren't accepting my definitions as valid because it goes against your understanding, which I would say is superstitious.

So unless you actually believe what I'm saying, you aren't going to understand. I am not speaking in mysteries, I am being plain and lucid. It is the cloudiness within you that is obscuring this, and as much as I'd like to cut through that fog, I know that God is the one who cleanses, not me.

I believe that God is The Truth because this is clearly God. If anything is true at all, it could only be so by The Truth. 

But when I say The Truth, you think I'm talking about an invisible sky daddy in the clouds who throws lightning bolts around. Your superstition is getting in the way of really understanding what I'm saying.

The proof is in that you keep asking me how God is The Truth.

That is simply what God Is. That is the identity of God. That is what God means.

Ok why do you believe that reality is more than just a bunch of radiation, stars and planets? Or is god just a bunch of stuff with no apperent direction or reasoning capability?

Why do you believe that reality is just a bunch of radiation, stars and planets?

I cannot be certain that it is but that is all it appears to be and so I have no reason to believe that it is anything more. Also of course I was oversimplifying.

I believe in the B theory of time and that Free Will doesn't exist.

Wouldn't you agree that  the continent of Anarctica existed before it was observed and thought of as existing?

We do not see things the way they truly are, but we know there is a way things truly are. We have ideas about the way things truly are, but we don't really know perfectly the way things truly are. 

Antarctica was there before anybody knew it was. A hypothetical missing southern continent was thought of having to exist to counterbalance all the land on the northern part of the Earth. So antarctica was a postulation even before it was discovered. The reasons for it having to be there may have been silly, but people believed it had to be there for this reason. Eventually, it was found and confirmed to be there.

God is kind of like Antarctica. It was there before anyone ever thought of it. People postulated that it must be there based on their own reasonings. Then it was discovered and observed to exist. I'm telling you that I've seen antarctica and though it may not be on your map, it is there. Though I have not explored it, I have seen the coast. If I were to explore it's entirety, I still could not know everything about it, even as people can't know everything about a much smaller place like the city of Berlin.

But really, you have seen the coast of Antarctica. You can plainly see that truths are realities. This is the coast of Antarctica. You may not know The Truth, but you know it is there because you have seen truth. When you see that there are truths, you are seeing that The Truth is there. It is the coast of Antarctica.

Do you understand the analogy?

I do understand the analogy but I don't believe it holds up. If god is like a continent that hasn't been discovered then you are talking about a quantative truth that has not been quantified. The problem with this is that while quantative truth that we are unaware of must exist (mathematically speaking) until we quantify it we can only make conjecture about its nature.

Do you understand that? Because it is a pretty crucial point if you expect me to accept your claims.

You cannot quantify The Truth, that is absurd. It simply is.

Then we cannot make any statements about the truth that are not mere conjecture. In other words we cannot know anything about an unknowable thing. (Tautalogical truth, if something fits my current understanding of the definition of the word unknowable then you cannot know anything about it.)

In short why do you believe in something that isn't just unknown but literally cannot be known?

Because I'm honest about epistemological limitations, and can accept that there is reality outside of knowledge.

The gravitas of veritas leads to knowledge, without a doubt.

But if it is outside of knowledge how do you assign attributes such as omniscience omnipotence and omnipresence (the logical contradictions these omni attributes imply aside) or even that the particular god concept you have in mind (whatever that happens to be) exists at all? You have explained that you mean whatever actually exists but also that you believe this to be more than just a collection of matter and energy following the laws of physics unguided so if that is all reality is then your god concept would not exist as you propose it.

I believe these attributes are certainly fulfilled by The Ultimate Reality and nothing else.

I think they all logically follow from what those words mean. I already explained how I see this to be the case. 

It doesn't make sense to you, but you also haven't accepted the basic premise, which means we aren't even talking about the same thing. Maybe once you accept what I'm saying, you will be able to make sense of it.

So what you are saying is you can only prove your case if I believe you ahead of time?

2 plus 2 equals 4, but if you won't accept the definition of 2, then how are you supposed to see anything? A 1 and a 1 is 2, but if you refuse to believe that a 1 and a 1 is 2 because you refuse to accept that definition of 2... what can I show you?

You have to believe me to an extent, yes. But if you understand what I am saying, I am not talking about believing me, I'm talking about believing The Truth.

If you believe The Truth, truth will guide you into being more honest about what is true to begin with.

I accept the definition of number 2 but I would reject any claim that the number 2 could not ecist without the 2 fairy even if the 2 fairy is defined ad the entity from which the number 2 derives without whom no number 2 is possible.

I'm not rejecting the claim that reality appears to exist I am rejecting the claim that reality is being guided by any awareness, conciousness or animus including its own. At least until such time as these attributes are demonstrated to me, but if you are correct that ultimate reality is unknowable it cannot be demonstrated and I'm still not sure why you believe in something that is undemonstrable.

What about these hang ups you have do you feel is impled by The Truth? Why are you attributing, as you see it, false things to The Truth? That contradicts the definition.

This is what I am talking about. The Absolute Truth is not false, otherwise it isn't what it is.

So it would make more sense for you to say that God isn't this and that instead of saying this and that isn't true, so God isn't real.

You are attaching extra unnecessary baggage to the concept, which is why you are denying it. The essential thing here is that God is reality, so why are you making God unreality?

It is not hard to accept God as being real, it's simply a matter of recognizing that God means The Ultimate Reality.

If you are defining god as the mindless workings of physical reality as governed by the laws of physics and nothing more than I am not arguing that doesn't exists. Anything else is pure conjecture unsupportable with the evidence available.

For example that reality itself is omniscient or even self aware is a claim that must be demonstrated to me before I can accept it.

I'm not defining God as anything other than The Truth, so if it is truth it is of God, and that is it.

So you are not claiming that god is sentient, self aware, capable of making descisions or is connected with the bible.in any way?

There are billions of people who accept God without believing in the bible, so that isn't really relevant.

What about the rest? If the ultimate reality turns out to be just a mindless set of physical principles then those principles are god and god is mindless?

We are not talking about gods, we are talking about God.

I don't believe in gods.

But if that is what God is, that is what God is. Whatever The Ultimate Reality actually is, that is God.

Ok then we finally agree on the definition. Sorry it took me a moment to understand. In that case what you believe is that something exists because some things seem to exist and you have chosen to call the totality of this existence God and worship reality even if our perceived reality turns out to be mindless or illusionary.

Are we on the same page now?

If you mean that I call reality as it truly is as opposed to how it seems to be, is thought to be, or is said to be God, then yes I'd say that there is a good chance we are on the same page.

See, we can argue about God all we want, but the existence God really isn't something that is up for debate. If you are talking about something that doesn't exist, it can't be God.