You are losing me because you seem to be asking me about something which is evidently obvious. Allow me to show you how I view your question and you can tell me if I'm mistaking your intent.
Let's substitute "wife" for God. I know you'll say my wife is physically here, but hold on, that is irrelavant to my argument.
No I wouldn’t. That’s it. Your wife isn’t an abstract (apart from how she’s defined) unlike God which is completely abstract.
Well, it will be very easy for you if you simply insist your beliefs are reality. I don't mind you "winning" that way. God is not "abstract" at all. In fact, I don't even know what "abstract" means as you use it here.
Well first. I know which things in my mind are MY concepts. I made them up. I remember making them up. They did not exist until I made them up. They don't change unless I change them. They never surprise me, or deviate from my conception of them.
Now God preceded me. He doesn't follow what I think He should be. He surprised me, I constantly have to adjust my conception of Him to keep it accurate.
Would you consider him genocidal then?
No. I may not be an Einstein, but I'm certainly not that stupid. Why would I consider that?
Likewise, I have a concept of my wife in my mind. But she sometimes surprises me by being different from my conception of her. I know the concept of her in my mind is NOT her, no matter how accurate to reality it may be.
I’m sure there’s actual philosophical terms that we’re discussing, but it will probably take too much time for me trying to find what they’re called.
True, but using formal terminology would clutter the process, and would make people not familiar with the jargon less able to follow.
You would agree your wife isn’t abstract though apart from how we define her, correct?
What does "abstract" mean. Not in existence? Because God exists.
So asking me how I can tell the difference between my concept of my wife and my actual wife is, well, weird. Only a person with a tenuous grasp on reality would have any problem distinguishing.
To me your wife is your wife (by definition)...
And my God is my God by definition.
...and I know she isn’t completely abstract unless she’s a fictional person.
So you are using "abstract" in terms of non-existent. But is it logical to insist on your conclusion while we argue your argument? Should we not establish the truth of your premises first, and then see if your conclusion follows necessarily from them?
Because you're a strict materialist atheist, you probably think God has no interaction with me that I can perceive. This is not true. Did I misunderstand you?
Okay can you tell me what interactions God has with you? I assume It will be on par with your wife.
Much deeper. God created me with his very "hands". He sustains me. The life force/power in my body and mind are sourced from Him. He soothes me when I'm afraid or dejected, He directs when I'm lost. He protects my loved ones. He gives me peace that passes understanding. He understands me.
I would have to lie to say I was unsure God exists.
Why could you not have used "non-existent"? How was "abstract" a more honest choice? We already know you don't think God exists, how can a premise in your argument that God doesn't exist, be your conclusion?? (And yes, there is a name for that logical fallacy.)
If you think my arguments success depends on your credulity, then I will have no problem leaving you to your beliefs that you conflate with reality. I just thought you were about to logically show me how God couldn't exist, instead of simply telling me in a dodgy way, that I must be wrong because - you don't think God exists.
Bummer.