I'm not sure, specifically, what you mean by God's perception being "more concrete" than our own.
As you're interpreting the statement "I am that which is," you're coming up with a more pantheistic view. My interpretation is more along the lines of "I am that which *must be*". (Another way this has historically been said is that God's _essence_ is his _existence_.)
In this interpretation, God is part of, but not the sum and total of, reality. God can create (and does, by his perception) other real things which are not God, but are nonetheless real. Thus there is a chair; it is not God, but exists as (and because) he perceives it. |