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.

I can't claim to be you or know what your thought processes are, but it's always been my personal opinion that you'd have to make A LOT of assumptions with science to claim it disproves or discredits the existence of God or gods in anyway. I'm not quite proud of it, but I learned how to debate on 4chan and believe me. You can find some very radical members of both belief systems.

They've always claimed that society has gotten to the technological and educational point in human history where the existence of god/s is/are no longer relevant, and that we no longer need to use it/him/them as a placeholder for scientific knowledge. They claim that since there's no need for god/gods, that he doesn't exist and by the rules of the universe, shouldn't. But can you really prove God doesn't exist? Yeah, the god we all prayed to in Sunday has a lot of flaws because the scribes and biblical writers were contrasting their reverence of the unknown with their ignorance and imperfection, and therefore, their bible is ignorant and imperfect.

Maybe most or all religions are this way, but can we really discredit the existence of a creator? I've seen some crazy, mind-raping things in my time and while my anecdotal evidence is highly unscientific, it's good enough for me. So tell me, how can we rule out the existence of anything bigger than ourselves using a few imperfect equations that we've already changed half a dozen times?

Let me restate what I meant. I agree with what you are saying about there having to have been a 'creator', but not a god. A god in the traditional sense (I.E. most religions) is a living being that simply IS the highest. I believe that something created everything, just not another living thing. Not in the traditional sense of living, of course. It may be that whatever this force is is capable of thought and speech, but is not on our plane of existence.

The biggest problem I have with this argument itself, though, is that we can not possibly come to a conclusion because there is no way to prove it either way.

Are we discussing a god, creator in general (May or may not be a living being) or the traditional God?

It cannot be on our plane of existence of course, and no religions say it is. If it was on our plane of existence, then we may be able to create and exnihilate. God is transcendental and supernatural.

We can successfully prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there must be a God. This does still stay in the realm of doubt, in the shadow of doubt to be exact, since this is not a self evident truth.

I think I defined the idea of God pretty well in my last post.