Do you know the similarities in the logical argument for both God and Black Holes?

Your analogy to black holes fails. The concept of black holes followed directly from Einstein's equations of (special) relativity. Black holes are just an extreme amount of gravity and there is ample proof of gravity. Black holes were long predicted before any observation evidence was found for their existence. Scientists can explain the observations with Einstein's equations, equations which have stood up to every experiment and observation made so far. The definition of a black hole is very precise, and unless certain observations are made, their existence is not hypothesized by science.

Your definition of spirit is purely biological. There is no reason to think that human motivation, drive, and enthusiasm are anything but products of our bodies and brains. You can define basic human emotions and will as "spirit" but that doesn't imply any non-physical properties to human existence.

That we have a subconscious, and are affected by outside events doesn't imply a great black hole-like force acting upon us. I disagree that "these forces" are unknowable - you haven't proven that and logic does not demand that conclusion. I also disagree that these "characteristics that affect[ed] the mind" are from outside ourselves, inasmuch they are not outside events that happen to us or that we hear about. You can define god that way but you haven't proven your definition.

There is far more observational evidence supporting the existence of black holes than there are of unknowable forces that affect the human mind. I don't think that any of these "characteristics" that you claim actually point to anything outside or separate of ourselves. They do not point to anything other than us. And we are not god.

You really have not presented a logical argument, you've just presented an analogy. An analogy is great to describe an idea, but it's not proof of anything. I don't find your explanation convincing. At it's most basic, you are arguing god of the gaps and creating your own gap before you find god there. That's never a good argument.

"From these observations developed a list of the characteristics that affected the mind. This list became the definition of God."

You had a pretty OK analogy going up until that point. Just redefining God doesn't prove that one exists. Most people define God as a fatherly supernatural force that has a personality and lives outside of the plane of physical existence, and is responsible for the creation of all life and matter.

Redefining the concept is a bit like saying "I define my toaster as God. My toaster exists. Therefore God exists."

Or slightly less flippantly... it's a God of the gaps argument. "Understanding how the subconscious mind works is hard, therefore Goddidit."

This is a dodgy analogy. Black holes do have evidence from a range of sources, including studying the speed of the clouds of gas orbiting those regions and based on the motion of the material whirling about the center. The 'human spirit' is not something that can be confirmed by evidence. Freud has been outdated by neuroscience and such things as ""motivation" etc can be explained by evolutionary psychology.

So you just redefined God as "the human spirit, the triumph of the human will over tremendous obstacles". Good for you.

I don't even have a problem with your Logical God. He doesn't hate gays, atheists or other religions, he is not against science, he doesn't try to push himself into laws and schools, he doesn't have contradictory ancient holy books full of superstition, and his followers aren't crazy.

You're just like a pantheist. Go in peace, friend.

Who the hell said there's no physical proof of black holes existing? Black holes emit radiation, which we can pick up. Black holes have a gravitational pull, which we can detect. Black holes create visual disturbances around them by bending light, and we can detect those.

You are beyond dense, and you're trying to make yourself sound smart. YOU! ARE! NOT! SMART! GO AWAY! NOW!

There is evidence for black holes, and the math behind the physics that verifies it. Something doesn't need to be visible to have evidence. Black holes do, god doesn't.

"both God and black holes have never been seen, they have that in common. "

Well, sort of, but, no.

Black holes have immense gravity fields that affect the things around them, and this is plainly visible.

God is supposed to have interacted with the physical world over and over, and yet, no evidence of him lingers.

Of course there is no "physical" proof of a spiritual reality. Duh! But there is enough experiential proof to convince hundreds of millions of intelligent people to the point where they are ready to die for what they know to be the truth.

Logic.

You're doing it all wrong.