The more empirical one is in his assessment of what is true about the world, the more his reality gravitates to a common reality that transcends culture, time, and place, and the better prepared he is to navigate that reality. If one is into mythopoieia (generating fictitious stories) and believing those stories, his reality as he understands it will be whatever he creates. It one is grounded in the application of reason to the evidence of the senses, he will discover the common reality and how it works. This is why there are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity alone, but only one periodic table of the elements. Only the latter is anchored to observation, and only the latter can be used to accurately predict outcomes.
And what reality is that? For most people it includes the existence of God(s).
Our common reality, the one that doesn't depend on belief, the one that contains the objects and processes that affect experience, the one discerned and tested empirically, the one those applying critical thought to the evidence of the senses discover, the one leading to the periodic table.
The god believers are numbered among the people in the 40,000 denominations of Christianity and countless other religions with mythologies, who create their reality from stories believed by faith rather than evidence. If you ask them about the nature of the gods they say they believe in, you'll see what I mean about them extemporizing as they go. We see it here on RF continually with the just-so apologetics generated ad hoc. No two have the same concept of God, because they feel free to just define gods into existence (see below).
You're trying to legislate reality with arbitrary definitions again. This definition does not establish that a deity exists or that it communicates with man. And it's not my definition. It doesn't describe reality, where people often claim that they get no message from a deity when they pray beyond an implied yes or no according to whether the wish in the prayer came true, but of course, that is also not a communication from a deity that likely doesn't exist.
And you do the exact same thing.
I'm not saying that reality is any particular way because of how I define reality, which is the domain of those objects and processes which interact with one another and can impress themselves on the senses. The qualities of reality are to be discovered. They cannot be defined into existence.
What you are doing is trying establish that something is a fact because of your definition. You wrote that, "Prayer by definition is a conversation with God. It's not a one way conversation" as if that made praying a two-way conversation. It doesn't.
Being a strict empiricist, I let the evidence of the senses reveal reality for me, not definitions or other pronouncements not derived empirically. They reveal nothing except an opinion, in this case, one I don't share. I can see what praying is with my senses, and it is not a conversation. It's a monolog. It doesn't become a dialog because someone defines it as such. Look at a prayer. Compare it a telephone call in which one speaks with the other party and a one in which one leaves a message. Only the first is conversation.
This has been a nice example of the different realities one sees according to whether he is observing it or defining it by fiat. You asked above "what reality is that." It's the reality that is apprehensible and comprehensible to the critical thinker, the phenomena of consciousness that can be ordered in a way that allows one to understand it sufficiently to successfully predict outcomes and subsequent conscious phenomena.
