2.Come up with something that, as Zankuu points out, moves us away from the discredited claim of yours that "Love is real therefore God is real."Discredited? By what? I can't read anything of the kind. All I see is people disagreeing and when asked to support their given "reason" why they disagree, they change the subject.
It's been explained to you that the word love describes an abstract emotion. Love is essentially a chemical reaction in our brains created by neurotransmitters and hormones. Once again, your argument that "If Love exists then God exists" becomes "If love is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions then God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions." Which says absolutely nothing
about the actual existence of God. No one here is arguing that the Christian god doesn't exist as an idea. Everyone on this forum agrees that God can be an abstract idea. We aren't able to discuss the existence of God with you because you're interchangeably discussing God as an idea and God as a real being. I consider it dishonest because while you believe that God is a real being, you're only addressing God as an abstract idea and droning on about it.
It is not because someone claims "your claim have been discredited" that it is. You must discredit it first.
"God is at least as real as Anger"
Meaning that there are at least the same amount of proof for the existence of Anger than the existence of God.
What you use to prove the existence of Anger and also be used to prove the existence of God.
OK, so let me help you understand why your argument has been discredited. Your argument is a non sequitur argument (a really bad one the more I look at it). To be more specific it's called affirming the consequent.Formal logic
Premise: If A, then B.
Premise: A because C.
Conclusion: Therefore, B.Your argument
Premise: It can be proven that anger is real and exists.
Premise: If God is at least as real as anger, then God exists.
Premise: God is at least as real as anger because it can be proven that anger is real and exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.Similar argument
Premise: Squirrels exist.
Premise: If that squirrel approaching us exists, then it must be friendly.
Premise: That squirrel is approaching us is friendly because it exists.
Conclusion: The squirrel approaching us is friendly.
See why this argument is considered fallacious? Your second premise hinges on the idea that the third premise is true (which it isn't), and even if it were the conclusion could still be false. The squirrel could be approaching because it has rabies instead of being friendly, just like God could only exist as an abstract thought and not actually exist as a real being. It's a really, really weird and poorly formed argument for the existence of God as a real being. Your argument is a super weird and ill formed non sequitur.