You, of all people, have no business whatsoever complaining about other people being unreasonable, Lukvance. Not when you've driven someone like me - arguably one of the most reasonable people on the forum - to the point where I simply don't care how people treat you! Do you have the first idea - the slightest clue - of just how furious I am with the way you act towards me and others? You're pedantic, asinine, extremely annoying, totally convinced that you're right, and that's just scratching the surface. Frankly, if it were up to me, you'd be banned outright for the way you've been acting towards other people.
And the worst part is that, as far as you're concerned, it's all justified as long as you don't lose an argument. Winning (and 'proving' that your beliefs are right) is all that matters to you. You don't care how upset other people get as long as you can say at the end that you 'won'. Even though, most often, this is how you look to others:
Yes, that's you. Lukvance, the Black Knight. If this were actually a physical fight, you'd be cut to worse shreds than the actual Black Knight was. But since it's just words, you can ignore and dismiss what your opponent says and keep spouting the same inane arguments which they've countered a dozen times.
I do not believe that love is an entity that can act on its own; it is an emotion that people act on. And that's why your comparison is false. If your god is the same as an emotion, then it exists (inside your head), but is no more a person than love is. It cannot do anything on its own; all it can do is provoke you to act in some way.
That's why you lost the debate, because you were so focused on proving that your god was as real as an emotion that you didn't think through the repercussions of making such an analogy. If you want to prove that your god is an actual entity that can act on its own, you must prove that it is more real than an emotion, because emotions are simply names we've given to hormones in our bodies that provoke certain responses.
That's why OAA is withdrawing from the debate. Because by 'proving' that your god is equivalent to an emotion, you've done his work for him. You had to show that your god was an entity that could act on its own in the real world in order to actually win the debate. By arguing that your god was equivalent to an emotion, you played right into his hands. He doesn't have to prove that your god is less real than an emotion in order to come out ahead.