Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

Not knowing when to stop...

Yeah, us atheists all must have perfect lives, don't we? Oh, but don't worry fellow non-believers, our time shall come! No doubt destiny has a hole waiting for us somewhere, and when we fall and feel desperate - that's when we'll be able to have a resonable discussion on the subject of god. Before that, we just don't know any better, huh?

There are atheists in fox-holes and there are atheists struggling to overcome extreme adversity in their lives. And there are christians and muslims and taoists and budists doing the same thing. This has nothing to do with the subject we're discussing. If you have any evidence for a god, present it. We've been patient long enough.

I think what he means by God (and he seemed to agree to it earlier, if I'm not mistaken) is the embodiment of hope through adversity.

I may not agree with calling it "God" nor do I personally think it is particularly useful to label it as "God". But I do agree hope through adversity exists and most people find it in themselves when they are in need. I think that's what he's getting at. I don't think he means a physical Jewish sky-God that waves his hands, commanding Israelite armies to slaughter women and children. I think I understand what he's trying to say, in a weird sort of way. I don't quite agree with it, but I think I might understand what he's trying to get across.

We all find "God" (hope in times of adversity) when we are in need. And that's pretty self-evident as you can find tons of cases where this is true. PureX himself for one. And probably you too.

I just don't see a purpose in labelling it anything other than "hope" if this is what PureX means because "God" comes with a lot of extra baggage. If this is what he personally defines his God as, basically, then I accept that model, though I disagree with calling it God.

Not to denigrate PureX or his experiences, but I would have the same answer if someone defined "God" as "chair". I agree chairs exist. I don't agree with calling chairs God, but I agree chairs exist. Nonetheless, though I might accept that model on those grounds, I definitely don't think it calls for worship or prayer.

 

[PureX]

I think what he means by God (and he seemed to agree to it earlier, if I'm not mistaken) is the embodiment of hope through adversity.

I may not agree with calling it "God" nor do I personally think it is particularly useful to label it as "God". But I do agree hope through adversity exists and most people find it in themselves when they are in need. I think that's what he's getting at. I don't think he means a physical Jewish sky-God that waves his hands, commanding Israelite armies to slaughter women and children. I think I understand what he's trying to say, in a weird sort of way. I don't quite agree with it, but I think I might understand what he's trying to get across.

We all find "God" (hope in times of adversity) when we are in need. And that's pretty self-evident as you can find tons of cases where this is true. PureX himself for one. And probably you too.

I just don't see a purpose in labelling it anything other than "hope" if this is what PureX means because "God" comes with a lot of extra baggage. If this is what he personally defines his God as, basically, then I accept that model, though I disagree with calling it God.

Not to denigrate PureX or his experiences, but I would have the same answer if someone defined "God" as "chair". I agree chairs exist. I don't agree with calling chairs God, but I agree chairs exist. Nonetheless, though I might accept that model on those grounds, I definitely don't think it calls for worship or prayer.

I feel as if it's more than just hope in the face of adversity, though. It's a trust/belief in a benevolent universe, or existence. It's an experience of transcendence (of self) through ideals like love and forgiveness. It's standing still, opening up, and allowing one's self to be recreated by a power outside of and greater than one's self. This is far more than just hope in the face of adversity. Such a simple hope as you imply would surely go unanswered. And "God" would not "exist". But such hope does not go unanswered. And we transformed. "God" does exist for us.

 

[Vile Atheist]

By trust/belief in a benevolent universe, do you mean that you believe the universe is benevolent? Because that is clearly not the case. The universe is a dark, cruel place and we mere humans are specks of cosmic dust on a slightly larger blue speck of cosmic dust floating in the cold blackness of space. We are the kings of this blue speck because of evolution. Evolution put pressures on us that allowed us to manipulate our environment for our needs. Hence technology, which is a massive advantage over other organisms. Without technology, we would be outcompeted by other animals and we would be running around in the jungle, trying to avoid being eaten.

That, of course, does not mean we cannot love, forgive or feel emotion. Nor does it mean emotions have no significance. On the contrary, our emotions are the results of reactions between even tinier specks of cosmic dust. They are the results of natural processes.

That being said, I see the significance of emotion to humans. But to the universe, I don't see any. It's just another chemical reaction occuring in a complex life form, one of billions. Emotion is significant to us because it is a primitive form of communication. It was our original form of communication that we haven't yet outgrown and perhaps won't for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years, provided we survive as a species for that long.

This is why I don't particularly buy it has anything to do with a "power outside one's self" or what have you. Sorry, I just don't see the evidence for this power outside of myself. And it's not as if I've lived a care-free life, either. Especially lately. So it is not as if I haven't had the opportunity to "open myself up", as it were. Sorry, I just don't see it.

 

[PureX]

By trust/belief in a benevolent universe, do you mean that you believe the universe is benevolent? Because that is clearly not the case. The universe is a dark, cruel place and we mere humans are specks of cosmic dust on a slightly larger blue speck of cosmic dust floating in the cold blackness of space. We are the kings of this blue speck because of evolution. Evolution put pressures on us that allowed us to manipulate our environment for our needs. Hence technology, which is a massive advantage over other organisms. Without technology, we would be outcompeted by other animals and we would be running around in the jungle, trying to avoid being eaten.

That, of course, does not mean we cannot love, forgive or feel emotion. Nor does it mean emotions have no significance. On the contrary, our emotions are the results of reactions between even tinier specks of cosmic dust. They are the results of natural processes.

That being said, I see the significance of emotion to humans. But to the universe, I don't see any. It's just another chemical reaction occuring in a complex life form, one of billions. Emotion is significant to us because it is a primitive form of communication. It was our original form of communication that we haven't yet outgrown and perhaps won't for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years, provided we survive as a species for that long.

This is why I don't particularly buy it has anything to do with a "power outside one's self" or what have you. Sorry, I just don't see the evidence for this power outside of each other to determine their duration relative to viability. And even then, as one individual and unique form passes away, others, with a slightly diffe myself. And it's not as if I've lived a care-free life, either. Especially lately. So it is not as if I haven't had the opportunity to "open myself up", as it were. Sorry, I just don't see it.

This is all a matter of personal choice, of course, but I do see the universe as benevolent. I see that it has been designed to allow for the maximum variety of energy forms to exist, and that each of these forms has a limited duration so that sooner or later other forms will be able to take their place. I see that these forms are not given preference, but instead are allowed to via freely with erent mix of unique traits come into being. he universe has gone to a lot of trouble to create a wonderful little spot just for us. I see that as benevolent.

And the fact that all this is the result of "natural processes" just adds to my conviction. As I a have never viewed "God" as "super"-natural.

 

[Copernicus]

You know, Purex, this discussion is beginning to sound like the conversation between Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn in My Dinner with Andre. That is, you take the position of Andre, whose description of various epiphanies that he associates with spirituality and supernaturalism clash with Shawn's much more pragmatic, mundane interpretation of life's events. Well, I don't think that our interaction here is quite as eloquent as theirs, but it is a fascinating film on similar subject matter that I heartily recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The universe has gone to a lot of trouble to create a wonderful little spot just for us.

The spot was formed by natural processes and we arose as a consequence from the conditions of that spot. No spot formed for us.

In the grand scheme of things, I just don't find us humans to be extremely significant. Significant to each other, sure. But not the totality of the universe.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

141 pages and sooooo much evidence presented

 

[Vile Atheist]

We're only getting around to defining the God in question now...which we've kinda done.

 

[Willamena]

We're only getting around to defining the God in question now...which we've kinda done.

:yes: Next we have to discuss what we mean by "is".

 

[Vile Atheist]

:yes: Next we have to discuss what we mean by "is".

I is. I is a Newfoundlander. But seriously.

"Is" signifies a state of existence, does it not? But what can be said to exist? I'm just speculating here. I haven't really thought about this too deeply, to be honest, so there is bound to be a few holes.

Something can be said to exist if:

A) It can possibly be conceptualized.
B) The concept is based on:
i) Something physical and tangible
ii) The result of something physical and tangible (i.e. love is the result of chemical reactions in our brains. The chemical reactions and our brains are physical and tangible and love is the result of them though it itself is not tangible)
C) What the concept is based on must obey the laws of science. (Since everything in our universe obeys the laws of science and anything outside our universe we cannot observe so it is irrelevant if other worlds exist or not. We don't know and it doesn't affect us.)


After putting a whole three minutes thought into it, this is what I've come up with (I didn't want to get too long).

Apply this to....trees.

Trees are obviously conceptualized (or if not, can be conceptualized) otherwise you wouldn't know what the hell I'm talking about. It is based on something physical and tangible (a tree made up of cells). The tree made up of cells obeys the laws of science.

Apply this to....unicorns.

Unicorns are conceptualized. It's based on something physical and tangible (horses). But unicorns do not obey the laws of science.

Apply this to....love.

Love is conceptualized. It's based on the result of something physical and tangible (the interaction between two humans triggering chemical reaction in their brains that can be directly observed). The chemical reactions obey the laws of science.

Apply this to....God.

God is conceptualized. It is based on something physical and tangible (human males, assuming the Abrahamic God). But God does not obey the laws of science. Since everything in our universe obeys the laws of science, God - if it exists - operates outside the universe. Since we cannot observe outside our universe, the question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant as we cannot observe God and God would not interfere with our lives. If God interfered with our lives, it would manifest itself in our natural world and hence it would either be subject to the laws of science (rendering it no longer omnipotent), or it would not exist.




Poke your holes, ladies and gents.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Poke your holes, ladies and gents.

Not in a sexual way.

 

[PureX]

There are atheists in fox-holes and there are atheists struggling to overcome extreme adversity in their lives. And there are christians and muslims and taoists and budists doing the same thing. This has nothing to do with the subject we're discussing. If you have any evidence for a god, present it. We've been patient long enough.

The point of my story is that there is an 'end of the line' to logic and reason. An when we come to that end of the line, and we have no "God", we are stuck. But if we at that moment, reach out to that idea of "God" (forget whether it's "real" or not), that idea of "God" can give us a way to move forward that we did not have and will never get from logic and reason, alone. That idea of "God" can give us hope in the face of complete hopelessness. And it can give us a path to walk that we otherwise would not have. And it's exactly in this way that millions of human beings have been saved from horrible addictions and mental obsessions. Blindly and irrationally trusting in a "God" can and has done for millions of people what no other idea or methodology could do for them. This is what it means to say that "God works for people". And this is why the idea of God is so real for so many.

Their healing is the evidence. And for them, it's overwhelming evidence. If you can't accept their healing as evidence, then perhaps it's because you have not been so in need of it as they have. Or perhaps you have never felt that completely trapped by your own weakness.

 

[Commoner]

The point of my story is that there is an 'end of the line' to logic and reason. An when we come to that end of the line, and we have no "God", we are stuck. But if we at that moment, reach out to that idea of "God" (forget whether it's "real" or not), that idea of "God" can give us a way to move forward that we did not have and will never get from logic and reason, alone. That idea of "God" can give us hope in the face of complete hopelessness. And it can give us a path to walk that we otherwise would not have. And it's exactly in this way that millions of human beings have been saved from horrible addictions and mental obsessions. Blindly and irrationally trusting in a "God" can and has done for millions of people what no other idea or methodology could do for them. This is what it means to say that "God works for people". And this is why the idea of God is so real for so many.

I could just as easily turn that around and say that many have been doomed by holding irrational ideas - and that too is very real and very demonstrable. I don't understand why this is even an issue, I'm sure having faith in a deity can be beneficial in certain situations and not in others. Heck, everything is good for something. But what does this have to do with the issue at hand? I thought we were presenting evidence for the existence of a god, not evidence for the existence of faith in a god and its effects on people. Are we now discussing whether or not religion/faith can have a positive influence on an individual? We can go there, but I don't see how it's relevant to the thread.

Enough with this nonsense, you keep jumping from a purely conceptual "god" - an idea that "helps" those that believe in it, and an actual deity for which you are trying to present evidence. So which is it? Is there, or isn't there a god, PureX?

Their healing is the evidence. And for them, it's overwhelming evidence. If you can't accept their healing as evidence, then perhaps it's because you have not been so in need of it as they have. Or perhaps you have never felt that completely trapped by your own weakness.

Please show me this overwhelming evidence and explain to me how it is evidence of a god. You know, I'm sure believing strongly in something, true or false, can make you act in a certain way. For all I know, religion might be effective at "healing" someone of an addiction. On the other hand, religion might be an addiction of its own - and there's no better way of getting rid of a habit than by replacing it with another habit. But again, this has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing - is there, or isn't there a god?

I find your assumption that I and others who do not have faith in a deity must not have faced sufficient hardship in our lives to be able to understand your god and find it plausible really annoying. In the same way I might argue that you have not faced enough problems in your life to once and for all be forced to shed irrational ideas like "god". :areyoucra

 

[PureX]

I could just as easily turn that around and say that many have been doomed by holding irrational ideas - and that too is very real and very demonstrable. I don't understand why this is even an issue, I'm sure having faith in a deity can be beneficial in certain situations and not in others. Heck, everything is good for something. But what does this have to do with the issue at hand? I thought we were presenting evidence for the existence of a god, not evidence for the existence of faith in a god and its effects on people. Are we now discussing whether or not religion/faith can have a positive influence on an individual? We can go there, but I don't see how it's relevant to the thread.

I know that you don't. But there is no difference between the idea of God and the reality of God, because "God" is not a chair. The idea of a chair is such that it can easily be objectively quantified and tested. The idea of a God is such that it cannot. So to say that because we cannot easily objectively quantify and test the idea of God, it therefor is not likely "real" strikes me as foolish on several levels.

Neither God nor the chair exist without the idea, because without the idea they will be both moot and unrecognizable to us. So it's not the objective quantity or quality of either of these things that matters regarding their existence. It's the viability of the idea, itself, that matters. And this is the "evidence" that I've been trying to present ... the viability of the idea. Responding that; "there's still no objective form of "God" is basically irrelevant. Not all viable ideas have an objective form (art, love, justice, etc. do not have objective form), yet this does not make them any less "real" than a chair.

Enough with this nonsense, you keep jumping from a purely conceptual "god" - an idea that "helps" those that believe in it, and an actual deity for which you are trying to present evidence. So which is it? Is there, or isn't there a god, PureX?

Please show me this overwhelming evidence and explain to me how it is evidence of a god.

Yes, there is a God.

How do I know? Because God did for me what I could not do for myself. God healed (changed) me when I could not heal myself and could not be healed by anyone else. God gave me hope when by any other reasonable view, all was hopeless.

I am the evidence.

You know, I'm sure believing strongly in something, true or false, can make you act in a certain way. For all I know, religion might be effective at "healing" someone of an addiction. On the other hand, religion might be an addiction of its own - and there's no better way of getting rid of a habit than by replacing it with another habit. But again, this has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing - is there, or isn't there a god?

That's just it. I was healed even though I didn't believe that God could heal me. And I was not then, nor am I now, religious. So this was not some kind of placebo effect. Secondly, an addiction to alcohol or drugs is not a "habit". It's a life debilitating and terminal illness. It's very similar to having an incurable form of brain cancer in that it will slowly destroy every aspect of your life as it slowly destroys your body. To call it a habit or imply that it's somehow curable by self-will is to wildly underestimate it's seriousness.

I find your assumption that I and others who do not have faith in a deity must not have faced sufficient hardship in our lives to be able to understand your god and find it plausible really annoying.

I can see that, and I am sorry. But it's reasonable to assume, from my perspective, that such folks simply have not reached that point where they are completely trapped and helpless. It's only then that one will reach for a God they don't really believe in. And so it's only then that they can discover the "reality" of that God when they are healed/changed by it.

 

[Rationalize It]

I can see that, and I am sorry. But it's reasonable to assume, from my perspective, that such folks simply have not reached that point where they are completely trapped and helpless. It's only then that one will reach for a God they don't really believe in. And so it's only then that they can discover the "reality" of that God when they are healed/changed by it.

i've seen/heard this quite a few too many times, and each time it sounds the exact same
quitting smoking was hard... i didn't look to god, i was a big boy and stopped smoking (cold turkey >< )after 11 years.

while in the army, getting shot at and watching my best friend die was pretty terrible... again i didn't look to god, i charged my rifle and shot back better than them, like i was taught during the 6 years prior.
My mother is on her 3rd bout of cancer skin->ovarian->now some lymph bullcrap, she's not praying, she's trusting the best doctors she can find to get that crud out of her....crappy things happen, dont matter who you are, or what you believe in


IMO and in others god is a crutch when your down, if you need it grab it, get your helping hand... dont say anyone else is less-enlightend or their situation was any less stressful because they havent needed that crutch in a bad situation.
/rant sry : ( i type incoherently

HAVE FUN!

 

[Commoner]

I know that you don't. But there is no difference between the idea of God and the reality of God, because "God" is not a chair. The idea of a chair is such that it can easily be objectively quantified and tested. The idea of a God is such that it cannot. So to say that because we cannot easily objectively quantify and test the idea of God, it therefor is not likely "real" strikes me as foolish on several levels.

How would you even come to a rational conclusion that god is real - if god is not quantifiable, if it is not objective, if it is not testable or observable? You could not. That strikes me as foolish, that you claim god exists while at the same time claiming it is completely undemonstrable. How do you know "god is not (like) a chair"? Where is this knowledge coming from? To say that there is no difference between the idea of god and the reality of god is completely nonsensical, unless you mean to say that god is purely conceptual - clearly the concept of god exists, so if it is indistinguishable from the "reality" of god - god exists only as a concept.

Neither God nor the chair exist without the idea, because without the idea they will be both moot and unrecognizable to us.

I understand your point, you've made it a dozen times - that does not mean that simply having a concept, an idea of something actually makes it real in any other sense. And it hurts just as much when you kick a chair if you don't recognize it as a chair as it does if you do have a concept of a chair. Trust me, I tested out this theory last night when the power went out.

So it's not the objective quantity or quality of either of these things that matters regarding their existence. It's the viability of the idea, itself, that matters. And this is the "evidence" that I've been trying to present ... the viability of the idea. Responding that; "there's still no objective form of "God" is basically irrelevant. Not all viable ideas have an objective form (art, love, justice, etc. do not have objective form), yet this does not make them any less "real" than a chair.
Yes, there is a God.

And what is the "viability of the idea" of a chair? I have no idea what you mean. There is no such thing as "love" actually floating around, you do realize that, right? "Love" is a word, a concept we use to describe (among other things) certain emotional responses and actions related to those emotions, etc... They are completely objective, observable, testable, demonstrable, quantifiable.

How do I know? Because God did for me what I could not do for myself. God healed (changed) me when I could not heal myself and could not be healed by anyone else. God gave me hope when by any other reasonable view, all was hopeless.

I am the evidence.
That's just it. I was healed even though I didn't believe that God could heal me. And I was not then, nor am I now, religious. So this was not some kind of placebo effect. Secondly, an addiction to alcohol or drugs is not a "habit". It's a life debilitating and terminal illness. It's very similar to having an incurable form of brain cancer in that it will slowly destroy every aspect of your life as it slowly destroys your body. To call it a habit or imply that it's somehow curable by self-will is to wildly underestimate it's seriousness.

I'm not going to respond to this, I'm simply not willing to argue on this level. You cannot use your personal experience as evidence for anyone else but yourself. And I feel it is unfair that you've put me in a position in which I have to either refuse to argue with you on this point or to argue on a very personal level, which I don't want to do. I'm sure your story is sincere and I do not doubt your experience, I do however doubt your interpretation and find it completely unresonable.

I can see that, and I am sorry. But it's reasonable to assume, from my perspective, that such folks simply have not reached that point where they are completely trapped and helpless. It's only then that one will reach for a God they don't really believe in. And so it's only then that they can discover the "reality" of that God when they are healed/changed by it.

 

[Willamena]

I is. I is a Newfoundlander. But seriously.

"Is" signifies a state of existence, does it not? But what can be said to exist? I'm just speculating here. I haven't really thought about this too deeply, to be honest, so there is bound to be a few holes.

Something can be said to exist if:

A) It can possibly be conceptualized.
B) The concept is based on:
i) Something physical and tangible
ii) The result of something physical and tangible (i.e. love is the result of chemical reactions in our brains. The chemical reactions and our brains are physical and tangible and love is the result of them though it itself is not tangible)
C) What the concept is based on must obey the laws of science. (Since everything in our universe obeys the laws of science and anything outside our universe we cannot observe so it is irrelevant if other worlds exist or not. We don't know and it doesn't affect us.)

I would suggest that there is nothing about the idea of existence that requires a thing to be physical and tangible. All that's required is that you can use some contraction of the verb "to be" in a phrase or sentence to bring it to life. That's what "it is" to signify.

After putting a whole three minutes thought into it, this is what I've come up with (I didn't want to get too long).

Apply this to....trees.

Trees are obviously conceptualized (or if not, can be conceptualized) otherwise you wouldn't know what the hell I'm talking about. It is based on something physical and tangible (a tree made up of cells). The tree made up of cells obeys the laws of science.
...
Apply this to....God.

God is conceptualized. It is based on something physical and tangible (human males, assuming the Abrahamic God).

Oh, really? They can all do the walking on water thing, then?

Actually (no sarcasm) I can see that... :yes:

But God does not obey the laws of science. Since everything in our universe obeys the laws of science, God - if it exists - operates outside the universe. Since we cannot observe outside our universe, the question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant as we cannot observe God and God would not interfere with our lives. If God interfered with our lives, it would manifest itself in our natural world and hence it would either be subject to the laws of science (rendering it no longer omnipotent), or it would not exist.

But you already brought it to life above, with your verbage.

 

[Commoner]

i've seen/heard this quite a few too many times, and each time it sounds the exact same
quitting smoking was hard... i didn't look to god, i was a big boy and stopped smoking (cold turkey >< )after 11 years.

while in the army, getting shot at and watching my best friend die was pretty terrible... again i didn't look to god, i charged my rifle and shot back better than them, like i was taught during the 6 years prior.
My mother is on her 3rd bout of cancer skin->ovarian->now some lymph bullcrap, she's not praying, she's trusting the best doctors she can find to get that crud out of her....crappy things happen, dont matter who you are, or what you believe in


IMO and in others god is a crutch when your down, if you need it grab it, get your helping hand... dont say anyone else is less-enlightend or their situation was any less stressful because they havent needed that crutch in a bad situation.
/rant sry : ( i type incoherently

HAVE FUN!

Nah, I'm sure god has a deeper "hole" for you to fall into -then you'll really understand, then you'll be part of the team! :sarcastic

 

[PureX]

i've seen/heard this quite a few too many times, and each time it sounds the exact same
quitting smoking was hard... i didn't look to god, i was a big boy and stopped smoking (cold turkey >< )after 11 years.

while in the army, getting shot at and watching my best friend die was pretty terrible... again i didn't look to god, i charged my rifle and shot back better than them, like i was taught during the 6 years prior.
My mother is on her 3rd bout of cancer skin->ovarian->now some lymph bullcrap, she's not praying, she's trusting the best doctors she can find to get that crud out of her....crappy things happen, dont matter who you are, or what you believe in


IMO and in others god is a crutch when your down, if you need it grab it, get your helping hand... dont say anyone else is less-enlightend or their situation was any less stressful because they havent needed that crutch in a bad situation.

I quite smoking 'cold turkey' after 25 years. It was very hard, but that has nothing to do with an addiction to drugs or alcohol. They aren't the same pathologies.

Also, by your own examples, here, you are showing yourself to be missing the point. By your own examples and statements, you are not going to turn to a god you do not believe in as long as you have ANY other course of possible action. This is exactly what I was pointing out. No one can experience the reality of God until they turn in earnest to that possibility. But if you don't believe in God's reality, then you aren't likely to turn to that god in earnest, are you?

Of course not.

And the only scenario that could break that dilemma would be a scenario in which you were completely trapped and hopeless BARRING the miraculous. And even then, you would only turn to God because you had no other option, not because you believe that doing so would work. Yet millions of other people have found, in exactly that moment of hopelessness and doubt, that God worked or them. And THAT'S WHY THEY BELIEVE, now.

This moment can't happen for a 'non-believer' until their non-belief is broken. That's what I was trying to explain.

 

[PureX]

How would you even come to a rational conclusion that god is real - if god is not quantifiable, if it is not objective, if it is not testable or observable? You could not.

But the idea of God is testable, and the effects are observable. And reality includes plenty phenomena that is not quantifiable or objective.

That strikes me as foolish, that you claim god exists while at the same time claiming it is completely undemonstrable.

I did not claim that God is undemonstrable.

How do you know "god is not (like) a chair"? Where is this knowledge coming from? To say that there is no difference between the idea of god and the reality of god is completely nonsensical, unless you mean to say that god is purely conceptual - clearly the concept of god exists, so if it is indistinguishable from the "reality" of god - god exists only as a concept.

Everything exists to us as a concept. Existence is itself a concept.

I understand your point, you've made it a dozen times - that does not mean that simply having a concept, an idea of something actually makes it real in any other sense. And it hurts just as much when you kick a chair if you don't recognize it as a chair as it does if you do have a concept of a chair. Trust me, I tested out this theory last night when the power went out.

A stoved toe is not the ultimate test of existence.

And what is the "viability of the idea" of a chair? I have no idea what you mean. There is no such thing as "love" actually floating around, you do realize that, right? "Love" is a word, a concept we use to describe (among other things) certain emotional responses and actions related to those emotions, etc... They are completely objective, observable, testable, demonstrable, quantifiable.

God is no less a concept.

I'm not going to respond to this, I'm simply not willing to argue on this level. You cannot use your personal experience as evidence for anyone else but yourself. And I feel it is unfair that you've put me in a position in which I have to either refuse to argue with you on this point or to argue on a very personal level, which I don't want to do. I'm sure your story is sincere and I do not doubt your experience, I do however doubt your interpretation and find it completely unresonable.

Well, ideas like art, love, justice, and God, are not such that they can be discussed or shared purely objectively. You can adopt the "three monkey" strategy regarding these if you wish, but none of them are going to go away simply because you refuse to discuss them. Nor will they become less "real".