So you are rejecting the definition of God as a philosophical, transcendental maximum (Anselm's God); and inserting your own definition by which God is not transcendental, not maximum, but instead material (I assume what you mean by tangible). First of all, even if something is transcendental, it would still be real.

Secondly, this raises a few questions that the transcendental definition of God answers in the definition:

What would explain the existence and origin of this other God? Anselm's God explains this that since God is a maximum, a maximum must be uncaused.

Does this mean that this is a cosmological argument? How would this material God cause the cosmos if it is not a maximum? Why then would this God disappear, as in, what is the force that sustains the cosmos?


Would you like to elaborate?

I am going to present Mortimer J. Adler's defense of the existence of a God. I personally adhere to this argument, and I think it is the most sound, and avoids fallacies.

Firstly, we must assign a definition to this God. Adler used Anselm's definition. This is the definition that God is a being than which no greater can be thought of. We must include the following notions:
1. The one and only supreme being
2. Which actually does exist in reality
3. Which cannot not so exist.

Anselm's argument ends at that; that God cannot not exist, so He must exist. The problem with that is God remains as an object of thought. We have yet to find the necessity of God that exists as we have defined it, so we cannot infer existence.

We will then continue on to infer existence, but first we must define the object from which the inference is made: the cosmos. This is a cosmological argument, with the cosmos as a whole (not anything inside the cosmos) as the effect to be caused. This effect to be caused implies the existence and action of the cause. Let us now define the nature of the cosmos as what we require for a cause to be needed: possible. In the time before the theory of the multiverse, Adler argued the fact that the universe we exist in is only one of the many possible universes that might have existed in the past or the future. If it is possible for other universes to exist then we must also say that this universe is merely possible. When something is possible, then it cannot be uncaused (it is contingent, meaning that it is not necessary) that it ; and by extension, is radically contingent (something is not necessary but exists, but its existence can cease at any moment).

Now we must place God as the efficient cause of this merely possible cosmos. The multiverse theory goes on to say that the origin of our cosmos is due to a regression of cosmos. These other cosmoses must also be possible though, and these must be an origin which is not contingent. This, coupled with the fact that the cosmos is radically contingent, allows us to say that there must be an efficient cause, supernatural in nature and action, to create and sustain the cosmos.

Why must we posit God as the creator and sustainer? God as we have defined, is a being whose origin is explained (a maximum has to have always existed) and is capable of said creating and sustaining per virtue that He is a maximum.

This has been a brief restatement of Mortimer J Adler's book How to Think About God. I suggest reading it, as it is a great book.

Feel free to reply and rebut.