How did you work it out?

[Ben Davis]

Science? Again you mean physical science as if this science could explain a phenomena outside physicality.

You're missing the point: there is no evidence that anything exists outside our physical reality, only our imagination. To put it another way, the defining attributes of things that are 'outside our physical reality' and 'things which do not exist' are the same (e.g. unempirical, do not interact with the physical universe, undetectable etc.). Why do you find it hard to understand therefore that people who place importance on evidence will reject claims pertaining to 'things outside physical reality'?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these things 'definitely don't exist', I'm just questioning how you support the claim that they do if there's no evidence which can be used to convince other people.

The universe is our physical reality...

Hehe, there are lots of practical definitions for 'universe'. The one you've used is common and works for (for example) practical cosmologists and laypeople. To mathematicians or theoretical physicians, the universe is the set of all possibilities (including those which are unimagined). To philosophers, it has many definitions. It looks like you're suffering limitations of definition for your perspective!

...that does not mean that is also our real reality or the reality that go beyond the physical body.

Got any factual evidence to suggest it does? Until that point, it's impossible to differentiate between 'things that don't exist' and the attributes you're defining for this 'alternate reality'.

To understand something outside the physicality one must first develop the senseS that are able to go beyond this physicality.

If no evidence can be provided of things outside 'the physicality', how can you tell that you have senses that can detect it? Surely if you can detect it, evidence will result due to the interaction with whatever is doing the sensing.

I am not interested in religion or in supernatural.
To me God is natural not supernatural.

Ah, so you're a naturalist. I'm surprised therefore that such a large part of your definition of god relies on supernatural suppositions.

The feeling that i experience belongs to me.
It is like if i would ask you what you feel when you make love with your lover.

The problem there is that neuro-science can tell you exactly what's going on in a brain when love is made (e.g. dopamine & seratonin levels, active areas of the brain). A social understanding of the qualia therefore gives us a reasonable idea of how that feels; it's quite describable in terms which most people can understand. Hence the popularity of erotic fiction!

Overall, it seems your definitions of god are of the deist variety. Or do you make the claim that your god can interact with your definition of our physical universe?