Yes, but we are not discussing the existence of the self, we are discussing the existence of God or gods.

The communication is coming from "what god really is" which is an intellectual construct

The communication is imagined.

You almost seem to admit in your argument that this communication isn't actually coming from God but from one's imagination. If that's the case, then you are refuting your own argument.

Right, and I actually raised a similar objection, though it's buried in the replies so most probably haven't seen it. And I don't know if you noticed, but there is also an implied premise that many of the other debaters here have missed, and it took me a little while to find it.

The implied premise is: "God is a being that can Communicate"

Without this premises his argument doesn't work, and it's the easiest premise to dispute.

If the premise is false, the argument is invalid

No, not quite.

INVALID ARGUMENT- A deductive argument where the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises

VALID ARGUMENT- A deductive argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from premises

SOUND ARGUMENT- An argument that is both Valid and has all true premises.

UNSOUND ARGUMENT- An argument with false premises.

Isn't that reverence of an idea they hold then ?

No. It's reverence of the Being or Deities which they believe exists.

And you suppose reverence can be for a non-existent ?

Certainly. As long as the person showing reverence BELIEVES that such a being exists.

The best way I can describe 'Worship' without referencing the Dictionary would be as 'Ritualistic Reverence'.

What does it matter if I use the dictionary or not?

1. That beings that do exist are worshiped.

2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped

3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship

Premise #2 is false. You can in fact worship something that does not exist. Quetzalcoatl I think most would agree is a non-existent being, and also a worshiped being.

I've got controversial opinions about prayer too.

And what are those? Should I expect personal anecdotes?

If you want to make a valid argument it would have to look more like this:

1. God is an unwaveringly trusted being

2. only beings that can communicate are beings that are unwaveringly trusted

3. Non-existent beings are not beings that can communicate

4. God is a being that can communicate

5. ergo, God is not a non-existent being

.

.

.

.

The premise/conclusion in italics are those that you left out, but were implied by your argument. This is a valid argument form, but most atheists would contend premise #4, and possibly premise #1.

People who are extremely trusted.

So your argument is only that trusted people exist, how is this a proof of God?

If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists.

Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.