I personally do not think your observation is relevant. Its kind of like me eating an apple and asking you what does the apple taste like. There is a saying, "There is he that has had the experience and no explanation is necessary (me eating and tasting the apple - finding God is real) and there is he that has not had the experience and no explanation is possible (me asking you what my apple tastes like - you not finding God is real). We can never find God while we walk the path of sin and unbelief when faith is the condition to knowing God according to the scriptures.
I simply point out that the view you propose is consistent with God being an idea coupled with an internal emotional experience. I define "real" as "having objective existence ie existing in the world external to the self". It seems obvious to me that if God were "real" in that sense, [he]'d have a definition and description appropriate to a real entity, just as real animals and birds and fish and insects and microorganisms and so on do.
I do not believe that is true at all. 2 Timothy 3:16 is simply a definition of what scripture is.
2 Timothy 3:16 says:
All scripture (γραφή - picture, drawing, writing, document, but in this context also 'scripture')
is inspired by God (θεόπνευστος)
profitable (ὠφέλιμος ─ helping, aiding, useful, serviceable, beneficial)
for correction, and
for training in righteousness.
(Note that no claim is made that γραφή is infallible, or to any extent free from error ─ merely that it can be useful for the purposes mentioned.)
I don't agree that this can refer to the NT ─ which doesn't exist at this time.
And I don't agree that this serves as a meaningful definition of "scripture". What objective test will tell me whether any particular body of writing is "inspired by God" or not? Or whether any part of it is NOT inspired by God? Without such a test, "scripture" is merely anything I'd like it to be, and never what I wouldn't like it to be.