Is God the same as Love?

Well it's not exactly a definition of terms like what I was asking for, but it answers with enough clear statements to give some grounds for reasonable discussion, so I'll continue to play the game for a little while.

I think you're being very 'fast and loose' with language and that can often make for a rocky discussion ...

Obviously I need to define my terms as well. I was hoping you would go first and define yours since you are the OP and ought to be guiding the discussion, but since instead of defining your terms you accuse me of being 'fast and loose' I'll go ahead and set the example of what I'm looking for from you:

Worshiper: A person who is devoted to someone or something, giving it honor and respect above all else. (eg, a 'Worshiper of Science' would be a person who is devoted to Science above all things, to the point of automatically disregarding even the possibility of anything beyond it.)

Spiritual: Anything not of the natural physical universe, the nature of which is outside the realm of science because it is outside the realm of the physical universe. However, the spiritual does in some way intersect with the physical world, and its effects can be detected (in my opinion, obviously. I don't expect others to accept the idea, I'm just defining my own terminology.)

God: My view of God is of a Personal Being (as opposed to an impersonal force) who is Spiritual in nature (see previous definition,) who designed and formed the entire physical universe, intentionally and with a purpose, and who continues to be actively involved in its progress. The God of my understanding possesses intelligence, power, and the emotional and mental characteristics of a discreet individual.
Obviously there are a great number of people who don't share that definition of god, and that seems to be the point of this topic, am I right? You perhaps are defining 'god' as nothing more than a personification of natural physical events that we do not understand (ie, luck?) That is the kind of thing I want you to clarify by defining your terms, instead of forcing me to guess what you're trying to say.


Now, back to the topic of the moment - first I want to ask you to moderate your tone a little. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but you came across a bit 'elitist', even arrogant, in your flippant mention of "not so obscure" and "Quantum Physics 101."
I'm not an ignorant child, and I'll thank you for not treating me like one.

I'm not unaware of Heisenberg Uncertainty, so it will not work as a smoke screen that you can just throw out there without definition or explanation to confuse things.
Heisenberg Uncertainty: certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.

To say that some things "cannot be known to arbitrary precision" is hardly the same as to say "all things have a possibility of occuring." As a matter of fact, there is one part of the Heisenberg principle that says exactly the opposite of that:
A mathematical statement of the principle is that every quantum state has the property that the root mean square (RMS) deviation of the position from its mean (the standard deviation of the X-distribution):

times the RMS deviation of the momentum from its mean (the standard deviation of P):

can never be smaller than a fixed fraction of Planck's constant

The very thing you use to claim "anything is possible" says that there are in fact things which are not possible:
1. It is impossible for anyone to know with precision both the position and the momentum of a particle.
2. It is impossible for the formula cited above to be smaller than a fixed fraction of Planck's constant.

So, I ask you again, which part of that principle, or any other, proves that "everything has a probability of occuring?"

I think I'm misunderstanding something in your statements above, I'll quote the seemingly contradictory parts here so you can explain them for me:
"Just because one can conceive there are such realms doesn't make them real any more than science's own mathematical claim of 9 dimensions.

Until something is true then the presumption is it's false. You have evidence?, well that evidence is in no other dimension than this observable one. What "is" is what's observable. A dream I have is a real dream but it's not part of reality (which is testable by anyone...gravity works the same all over).

Otherwise, as is the very case of metaphysics, anything one can speculate is possible until proven false."

Notice the italicized parts especially.
On one hand, when I come up with a theory, you say "until it is proven true, it is false."
On the other hand, when you want to defend your idea that "everything is possible" you say "until it is proven false, everything is possible."
So which is it? Is it possible until proven false? Or is it false until proven true? You can't have it both ways.