If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[Cinjin]

Many of you critiqued that I used the vague words, "accept" and "love". In addition, many questioned which God I was referring too. I realize that the question was vague, but it facilitated precisely what I was hoping it would. If I may summarize, the vast majority rejected (with exceptions of course) the very premise of the question because of a lack of "demonstrable" (empirical) proof. I would like to use this summation to discuss what the theist and atheist "metaphysical dream" may look like. Could those on this post please discuss what they think of the following proposal:

1) What is the difference between fact and truth?

Many of you have pointed to the lack of evidence. But do facts mean truth? Are they synonymous?

In my opinion, facts are simply points on our mental grid of what we interpret reality to be. Atheism is simply an interpretation of how these facts (points) intersect with one another. Therefore, facts can point in many ways. An atheist will look at the facts and interpret them one way. The theist will look at the facts and interpret them to fit their mental grid. But neither of these is necessarily reality itself. Reality is in fact only the right interpretation of the facts.

This is actually a very common ploy in the effort to attain evidence where none can be found. In order to validate ethereal and philosophical ruminations as evidence one must first attempt to redefine and devalue the accepted standard of what legitimate evidence is. This is done by getting your opponent to admit haphazardly that what you're proposing is possible and then using it against him later in the argument when your real agenda is revealed. Criminal attorneys do this on cross-examinations. Sometimes it works in a court of law with a half-wit, but it always fails miserably here.

So is the issue between a theist and an atheist simply about facts (evidence)?