If your thoughts were real.... If your dreams were real.... If your imagination were real.... etc., etc., etc., I would see them right? I would have no reason to questions whether they were real or not, right?
No, you misunderstand.
The correct expression is, "If things were real because you thought of them, if things you dreamed of were real because you dreamed them, if things that you imagined were real because you imagined them, I could see those things, right?"
And the answer is, things are not real just because you can think, dream, imagine them. But if they were, then they'd be like any real thing ─ they'd have objective existence, and accordingly could be perceived ─ perhaps with the aid of tools like telescopes, microscopes, the LHC &c, but perceived.
So God is not real, God does not have objective existence, just because you think/dream/imagine God. A real God would be, by virtue of being real / having objective existence / not being imaginary, perceivable.
Got it?
These are your interpretations. There are not right. Okay?
Not okay.
First, the quotes say what they say plainly.
Second, you again failed to address the question ─ since the cosmology they express is the cosmology of their time and place, why would you expect them to say anything else?
Your habit of not addressing questions about your position is a great weakness in the way you try to argue.
I answered all your questions.
That is simply untrue.
The one on magic seems to me a joke.
Then you've misunderstood everything I've said from the start.
If you offer any 'explanation' of the origin of species, you offer the bible. And the bible, in the Garden story in Genesis, says that species were created by magic. It was written by people who believed in magic, so that's no surprise. And since you've adopted it, it's up to you to explain how magic works. Yet asked again and again, you still haven't.
Nor have you offered an alternative. The history of helium is not an alternative.
I think the same way you went on the internet to find scriptures to argue on, and came up with a flat earth, you can do the same for magic.
Which brings us back to the question you didn't answer: why would you expect people writing at the times and places the bible was written to describe anything but their own understanding ─ a flat, geocentric earth &c?
However, all your questions were answered.
You know that's untrue, so you'd have done better not to say it.
You know you haven't told me how the first sloth came to be, although I've asked you not just once or twice but repeatedly.
You know you haven't told me how magic works, yet magic is all you're offering as the alternative to evolution.
You know you haven't given me a definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine if it were God or not.
You know you haven't answered my question, Is God the designer?
You know you haven't told me what test you use to determine whether a statement is true or not.
And you know you haven't told me why you'd expect the bible to reflect 21st century cosmology instead of the cosmology of the times and places it was written.
Again I invite you to answer those questions.