Who?What Is God?

[Belinda]

If I may, I advise you to write in sentences until such time as you are a famous author.

You have some good ideas but you are not sufficiently critical of your own ideas.I apologise for generalising but your style is making it hard to discuss with you.

I responded to Age's points by way of yourself. It's easy to correlate my answers with them. Happy to discuss any with you. My ideas are simplest. St. William of Occam is my patron saint, along with Puddleglum.

[daniel j lavender]

Again. the concept of deity I'm referring to is the concept of deity. Which . has . no . dimensions. They transcend space (for infinity) and time (from eternity); spacetime, they contain it, instantiate it, will it, sustain it. Not the other way around. According to the nonetheless prevenient laws of physics. Including the measured constants, in the keys of c, e, G, h, e t c.

Fair enough.

That would qualify as existence, that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, as articulated here: viewtopic.php?t=40269

The ontology I’m presenting expresses “infinite” not merely as spatial extent but as extent in general. Existence is “infinite in extent” not merely “infinite in space”.

Additionally “eternity” is expressed as “not limited by duration” which essentially parallels your premise of transcending time.

Existence, being infinite, or unlimited in extent, includes space, it includes time, it includes dimensions and all else beyond. Again, that which is perceived or interacted with qualifies as existence.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular. That specific conception of deity is also accommodated.

God cannot be perceived or interacted with.

That would not disqualify God as existence. Your acknowledgement indicates some level of perception.

Existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part: viewtopic.php?t=40269

That qualifier, at least in part, would allow the inclusion of such a conception of God. As stated the ontology is highly versatile and accommodates a variety of views and beliefs.

Perception is a parametric base allowing us to ground existence in practical, concrete ways. Not all of existence must be perceived. However all doesn’t need to be perceived in order to realize any supposed boundary or limiting factor would itself be, indicative of existence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Even if He were the deist ground of being. Which He is not. I.e. which is not true. Not coherent, warranted or justified. That is entirely separate from mere stories, claims of Him being perceived or interacted with. None of which is true either, in an infinitely lower theist category.

How so?

Are you suggesting no deity or eternal creative element?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Fair enough.

That would qualify as existence, that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, as articulated here: viewtopic.php?t=40269

The ontology I’m presenting expresses “infinite” not merely as spatial extent but as extent in general. Existence is “infinite in extent” not merely “infinite in space”.

Additionally “eternity” is expressed as “not limited by duration” which essentially parallels your premise of transcending time.

Existence, being infinite, or unlimited in extent, includes space, it includes time, it includes dimensions and all else beyond. Again, that which is perceived or interacted with qualifies as existence.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular. That specific conception of deity is also accommodated.

God cannot be perceived or interacted with.

That would not disqualify God as existence. Your acknowledgement indicates some level of perception.

Existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part: viewtopic.php?t=40269

That qualifier, at least in part, would allow the inclusion of such a conception of God. As stated the ontology is highly versatile and accommodates a variety of views and beliefs.

Perception is a parametric base allowing us to ground existence in practical, concrete ways. Not all of existence must be perceived. However all doesn’t need to be perceived in order to realize any supposed boundary or limiting factor would itself be, indicative of existence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Even if He were the deist ground of being. Which He is not. I.e. which is not true. Not coherent, warranted or justified. That is entirely separate from mere stories, claims of Him being perceived or interacted with. None of which is true either, in an infinitely lower theist category.

How so?

Are you suggesting no deity or eternal creative element?

Reason.

No. I'm stating it as a coherent, warranted, justified, true, belief. A fact. Of knowledge. By science, reason, common sense.

[Age]

God cannot be perceived or interacted with.

That would not disqualify God as existence. Your acknowledgement indicates some level of perception.

Existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part: viewtopic.php?t=40269

That qualifier, at least in part, would allow the inclusion of such a conception of God. As stated the ontology is highly versatile and accommodates a variety of views and beliefs.

Perception is a parametric base allowing us to ground existence in practical, concrete ways. Not all of existence must be perceived. However all doesn’t need to be perceived in order to realize any supposed boundary or limiting factor would itself be, indicative of existence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Even if He were the deist ground of being. Which He is not. I.e. which is not true. Not coherent, warranted or justified. That is entirely separate from mere stories, claims of Him being perceived or interacted with. None of which is true either, in an infinitely lower theist category.

How so?

Are you suggesting no deity or eternal creative element?

Reason.

No. I'm stating it as a coherent, warranted, justified, true, belief. A fact. Of knowledge. By science, reason, common sense.

If it was coherent, et cetera, then you could explain it. That you continually fail to explain it means that you do not understand it well enough, yet.

Will you clarify why you do not respond to challenging and clarifying questioning, here?

Do you have some sort of fear, here, or are you just not yet capable of backing up and supporting your own personal beliefs?

See, unlike 'you' what 'I' say and claim, here, can not be refuted. So, if 'you' also became open, and then remain open, then 'you' too would also never be Wrong, here.

The Fact that these people only question and challenge each other, and not me, here, shows that they have an internal knowing within them. Them knowing that if they ever started to challenge and/or question me, then my replies would counter and refute their views and beliefs, absolutely, is what is stopping and preventing them, and is why they 'try to' ignore my writings, here

[MikeNovack]

The Fact that these people only question and challenge each other, and not me, here, shows that they have an internal knowing within them. Them knowing that if they ever started to challenge and/or question me, then my replies would counter and refute their views and beliefs, absolutely, is what is stopping and preventing them, and is why they 'try to' ignore my writings, here

Not exactly. The lack of challenge might be:

1) I accept that is true that you believe what you believe.

2) I might think your beliefs wrong (not in accord with what I believe, but consider it a waste of time where the topic of the belief is outside of either material reality (physics, for example) or logical "space" (mathematics, for example). or social reality. There is simply no evidence to be produced when we are discussing deity.

[Age]

The Fact that these people only question and challenge each other, and not me, here, shows that they have an internal knowing within them. Them knowing that if they ever started to challenge and/or question me, then my replies would counter and refute their views and beliefs, absolutely, is what is stopping and preventing them, and is why they 'try to' ignore my writings, here

Not exactly. The lack of challenge might be:

1) I accept that is true that you believe what you believe.

But, no one, here, even knows what the one only thing I believe in even is. Which, by the way, has absolutely nothing at all do with absolutely any thing in this thread.

2) I might think your beliefs wrong (not in accord with what I believe, but consider it a waste of time where the topic of the belief is outside of either material reality (physics, for example) or logical "space" (mathematics, for example). or social reality.

Considering the fact that,

1. I do not believe any thing, here, in regards to this thread, you thinking 'my beliefs' has cast you off on some completely Wrong track.

2. If you never seek out clarifying questions, which means that you do not even know what 'it' is, exactly, to challenge, then any assumption of yours that 'it' is outside of either material, logical, or social reality is all just a made up presumption and/or belief of yours, alone.

There is simply no evidence to be produced when we are discussing deity.

And here 'it' is again, another prime example of how assumptions and beliefs stopped and prevented these human beings, back when this was being written, from learning and seeing what the actual Truths, in Life, really are.

[MikeNovack]

There is simply no evidence to be produced when we are discussing deity.

And here 'it' is again, another prime example of how assumptions and beliefs stopped and prevented these human beings, back when this was being written, from learning and seeing what the actual Truths, in Life, really are.

I think you misunderstand me. Think when I say "no evidence to be produced" I am saying "no evidence" I am NOT denying "personal knowledge". I am not denying personal experience, feelings of awe, etc. When person X describes to me they believe Y because .......I can accept that as TRUE (the statement "X believes Y") but that has nothing to with whether Y is true.

[daniel j lavender]

The Fact that these people only question and challenge each other, and not me, here, shows that they have an internal knowing within them. Them knowing that if they ever started to challenge and/or question me, then my replies would counter and refute their views and beliefs, absolutely, is what is stopping and preventing them, and is why they 'try to' ignore my writings, here

Philosophy shouldn’t be competition, philosophy should be discussion. There is enough competition in the world already. However you seek such exchange so it shall be provided.

According to you, this is your system summarized:

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

Original comment: viewtopic.php?p=787289#p787289


This is the ontology I’m presenting, summarized:

Existence simply is.

Existence does not depend on any definition.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Existence is all things. There is no other upon which to depend.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.

All variance, all difference, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

Existence is not dependent on perception, interaction or definitions however perception, interaction and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.

Original comment: viewtopic.php?p=772704#p772704

Original essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269


The ontology I’m presenting is more concise yet more comprehensive. It uses fewer words while articulating more expansive ideas.

The summary or ontology presented could integrate your system, however, your system could not integrate it. Your system is locked into a pantheistic or panentheistic style frame while the ontology presented exceeds and encompasses that frame.

In other words your system is relatively rigid and dogmatic.

Furthermore you do not have a fully developed, structured and coherent system with well-defined terms. You have vague, miscellaneous, disconnected comments and posts scattered over hundreds of various threads.

The ontology offered is a structured, foundational, general framework from which systems can emerge. Yours would be one of those systems.

[Age]

There is simply no evidence to be produced when we are discussing deity.

And here 'it' is again, another prime example of how assumptions and beliefs stopped and prevented these human beings, back when this was being written, from learning and seeing what the actual Truths, in Life, really are.

I think you misunderstand me. Think when I say "no evidence to be produced" I am saying "no evidence" I am NOT denying "personal knowledge".

you very clearly stated, 'There is simply no evidence to be produced when we are discussing deity'. So, and Correct me if I am Wrong, here, but what you are saying, and meaning, is that 'There is simply no evidence, at all, to be produced, by any one or any thing, when we are discussing deity'.

Now, if this is Correct, then what 'we' can clearly see is another example how assumptions and beliefs stopped and prevented you human beings from coming to recognize and see what the actual Truths, in Life, really are.

But, if what I said above is not Correct or Wrong, then why, exactly?

Also, I never ever even thought that you were denying personal knowledge'. I took what you said and claimed to mean that you are saying, and meaning, that there is no evidence, at all anywhere, to be produced when 'we' are discussing deity.

Which, to me, is a really huge, and foolish, claim one little single and limited finite human being could make.

I am not denying personal experience, feelings of awe, etc.

Okay, but considering I never ever thought any thing like 'this', to bring 'this' up seems very unnecessary.

When person X describes to me they believe Y because .......I can accept that as TRUE (the statement "X believes Y") but that has nothing to with whether Y is true.

Okay, but considering I have never ever used the, 'I believe ...', words, here, it again seems very unnecessary to bring up and mention these views of yours.

Now, 'I' have described who and what God is, here. Which, once again, I can prove absolutely True. So, if any one would like to have a Truly open and honest, and peaceful, discussion, then let 'us' begin.

I will also remind you people, here, that I seek out, and thrive on, being challenged, for proof, either way, and on being questioned, for clarity sake.

But, for any one who believes that there simply no evidenced that could be produced either way in regards to God, Itself, then I would just ask,

Why not, what do you think or believe the word, 'God', means and is in relation to, exactly? As well as, what proof do you have for your view or belief, here?

Oh, and by the way, I do not do 'evidence' anyway. As I much prefer to use 'proof' only, and instead, for the very obvious reason that proof can not be countered nor refuted whereas 'evidence' can.

[Age]

The Fact that these people only question and challenge each other, and not me, here, shows that they have an internal knowing within them. Them knowing that if they ever started to challenge and/or question me, then my replies would counter and refute their views and beliefs, absolutely, is what is stopping and preventing them, and is why they 'try to' ignore my writings, here

Philosophy shouldn’t be competition, philosophy should be discussion.

Which is, EXACTLY, what 'philosophy' is all about, and what I have been saying, and meaning.

I have even pointed out, on numerous occasions, that 'philosophy' requires 'logical reasoning', and that I am seeking Truly open and honest, peaceful, discussions with you people, here.

There is enough competition in the world already.

I am the only One, here, who seeks out and asks for 'discussions'.

I do not do 'competition', just like I do not do 'debate', just like I do not do 'evidence', just like I do not try to 'convince' any one of any thing, here. And, the reason I do not do 'these things' is because what the actual Truths are, can only be 'found', and 'known', by "one's" own 'self', and not 'forced' into 'another', like there is some sort of 'competition', here.

Either some thing 'makes sense', to one, or 'that thing' does not.

Learning, and understanding, comes from 'what makes sense', within, and is not done through 'competing' nor by 'winning', nor 'losing'.

However you seek such exchange so it shall be provided.

What are you even on about, here?

I have never ever sought 'competition', at all.

I have, however, challenged those of you who have come into this forum and 'tried to' claim, things, that are not actually True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct, at all.

And, what will come-to-light on re-reading of this forum that even when I have asked you people, here, some clarifying questions I am even agreeing and accepting what you are saying, and meaning, so there is certainly no seeking of any 'competing exchange' at all. I just ask to gain a better understanding and/or to gain a further or better understanding, and/or further or better knowledge, which I could then use in and/or for future references.

Even when I agree with you and accept 'your own conclusions', for example, you have this belief that 'I' am in some sort of 'competition', with 'you'.

So, again, 'I' will suggest that when any one is hearing and/or reading the 'actual words' that I say, write, and use, here, that you do so without absolutely any assumptions nor beliefs, at all.

That way you human beings will not make so many misinterpretations, not have so much misunderstanding, not be in so much conflict, and not have and make so many False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect views and claims.

According to you, this is your system summarized:

The visible Universe is what God is, in the physical sense.

The invisible Mind is who God is, in the spiritual sense.

Obviously both, combined, are what, and who, are the Creator of all things.

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is what is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Obviously the Mind, Itself, is who is omniscient, and omnipresent. And,

It is the, invisible, Mind, Itself, which is who, and what, is with(and)in all, physical, things.

There is only One Mind and One Universe, which are infinite, and, eternal.

Original comment: viewtopic.php?p=787289#p787289


This is the ontology I’m presenting, summarized:

Existence simply is.

'Existence' simply is 'what', exactly?

Or, in other words, when you use the words, 'Existence', what are you meaning, and/or referring to, exactly?

Existence does not depend on any definition.

How then do you 'know' what 'that word' means, and/or is referring to, exactly?

For example if I said, 'Ecnetsixe simply is'. And, 'Ecnetsixe does not depend on any definition', then how would 'I' and 'you' know what 'I' am meaning and/or referring to, exactly?

So, are you absolutely sure that words, themselves, do not depend on any definitions.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Are you absolutely sure?

Could 'Existence', Itself, exist if there were no thing at all?

If yes, then how, exactly?

But, if no, then 'Existence' does depend on some thing.

Existence is all things.

But, to me anyway, 'things' are things, and, 'Existence', Itself, is not all things. For example, 'Existence', Itself, is not an elephant nor the thought of a blue unicorn, which are obviously 'things'. Now, while all 'things' exist, in one form or another, none of 'them' are 'Existence', Itself, and only 'Existence', Itself, is Existence.

There is no other upon which to depend.

Except, I just showed and proved how 'Existence', Itself, does depend on 'other things'. Again, if there were no other things, then 'Existence', Itself, would not exist. So, 'Existence', Itself, does depend on 'things' and/or on 'others'.

Now, if you do not believe nor accept and agree with 'this', then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

If you do not, then some might infer that you can not counter nor refute 'this example and claim' of mine, here.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.

That all things 'exist', or what you call is 'the commonality' of all things is that they exist has no bearing on the fact that 'Existence' is depended upon 'these, other, things'.

All variance, all difference, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

Existence is not dependent on perception, interaction or definitions however perception, interaction and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.

Original comment: viewtopic.php?p=772704#p772704

Original essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269


The ontology I’m presenting is more concise yet more comprehensive. It uses fewer words while articulating more expansive ideas.[/quote]

But, 'I' just proved how and why 'your view, idea, and belief', here, is Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

'I' am also wondering what you are saying, and claiming, here, has to do with the question, 'Who and what is God?' and what 'my answer' to 'that question', exactly?

The summary or ontology presented could integrate your system, however, your system could not integrate it.

If 'this' is what you believe is absolutely true, to you, then okay.

I am not sure what you would like 'me' to do, here, now. Are you 'trying to' 'compete' in some thing, here?

Your system is locked into a pantheistic or panentheistic style frame while the ontology presented exceeds and encompasses that frame.

But, what you call and claim is 'the ontology', as I just showed, replies on 'things', in the first place. In other words, take 'all things' 'away', and then there is no 'Existence' at all.

In other words your system is relatively rigid and dogmatic.

Why do you call 'my words', 'my system'.

If you could counter or refute any of 'my words', then why do you not just 'do that'? Like how 'I' did with and to 'your words'.

But, remember, you, still, do have 'the opportunity' to express and show how and why 'my words' in regards to 'Existence', Itself, is, obviously, dependent upon 'things' is false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect.

And, please feel absolutely free to have 'a discussion', here, to back up and support your claims and beliefs, here, as well as to counter and/or refute what I have said and written, here.

So, 'I' await 'a discussion', with 'you'.

Furthermore you do not have a fully developed, structured and coherent system with well-defined terms.

I never even thought I did, let alone suggested nor presented any thing at all like I did.

Once more, 'I' am, here, in this forum, to learn how to communicate better with you human beings.

You have vague, miscellaneous, disconnected comments and posts scattered over hundreds of various threads.

Do you believe that your comments and posts, scattered over whatever number of threads you have written in, are not vague, not miscellaneous, and not disconnected?

The ontology offered is a structured, foundational, general framework from which systems can emerge. Yours would be one of those systems.

Again, if 'this' is what you believe is absolutely true, then 'this' is perfectly fine, and okay, with 'me'.

In fact I Truly enjoy when people like "yourself" "daniel j lavender" express and share what you believe is absolutely true. As 'this' only goes to confirm and verify what 'I' have been and will be saying, and meaning, exactly.

Now, imagine coming into a 'philosophy forum' and starting a reply with,
Philosophy shouldn’t be competition, philosophy should be discussion.

and then not have 'a discussion' but just wanting to 'compete' and claim that your own so-called 'system' overrides, is better than, and thus 'beats' 'another's system'.

Imagine going into a 'philosophy forum' and 'trying to' make 'a competition' out of one's own views and beliefs, compared to another's views.

There is no 'winning', nor, 'losing', here. Some 'arguments are just sound and valid', while others are not. The 'advantage', here, is being able to recognize and tell 'the difference'.

See, it is only 'sound and valid arguments', alone, which are better off being expressed and repeated, only. The rest are, literally, what is called 'just a waste of time and of energy'.

[Fairy]

Age wrote: “Learning, and understanding, comes from 'what makes sense', within, and is not done through 'competing' nor by 'winning', nor 'losing'.”

——-

Response: You can master anything simply by doing it long enough. All you have to do to achieve mastery is:
1) WANT IT
2) DO IT EVERY WEEK
3) NEVER QUIT

You cannot master something you don’t love. So love is of course the key. Find what you love and go all-in on it.

We all get by with a little help from our friends. It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. A man cannot serve two masters.

[Fairy]

Age wrote:“There is no 'winning', nor, 'losing', here. Some 'arguments are just sound and valid', while others are not. The 'advantage', here, is being able to recognize and tell 'the difference'.”

——

Response: There’s absolutely no difference between winning and losing. When you win you lose, and when you lose you win.

There’s only one mind remember. God’s mind being this infinite unconditional limitless Love aka God
Infinite God taking shape in the form of multiple finite bodies for the love of experiencing everything from every unique perspective as and through God’s individuated unity.

Unity has no argument with itself, that’s the correct logic here. Better than other’s mentality is a deeply flawed error of judgement.

[Fairy]

Age wrote: “See, it is only 'sound and valid arguments', alone, which are better off being expressed and repeated, only. The rest are, literally, what is called 'just a waste of time and of energy'.”

——-

Response: No expression is a waste of time and energy, it’s just all the same one energy dancing with itself. From source to source an endless spring.

The source of all expression is the same one source behind every expression. The one looking through multiple different eyes appearing different and yet is sourced from the exact same place, the one and only.


In every person there lies one same seer looking at itself from multiple perspectives, every pixel being a unique aspect of the whole picture.

in·sight
noun
penetrating mental vision or discernment.
the sudden act of grasping the inner nature or truth of a situation.
a deep understanding of a person or thing.

No need to back up ANY claim made AGE… because it’s all the one love in action dreaming difference where there’s NON

[daniel j lavender]

'Existence' simply is 'what', exactly?

Or, in other words, when you use the words, 'Existence', what are you meaning, and/or referring to, exactly?

Existence simply is.

Existence is defined in the essay. Review the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Existence does not depend on any definition.

How then do you 'know' what 'that word' means, and/or is referring to, exactly?

Because it is explicitly defined in the essay.

The definition of the term pertains to conscious beings, to humans and their understanding. It is not an ontological requirement.

Review the essay.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Are you absolutely sure?

A thing may depend on another however those are things, parts of existence. Not existence as all, which is the context of that statement.

Could 'Existence', Itself, exist if there were no thing at all?

That is an “if” premise which does not apply. There are observably things, not no thing.

There is no other upon which to depend.

Except, I just showed and proved how 'Existence', Itself, does depend on 'other things'. Again, if there were no other things, then 'Existence', Itself, would not exist. So, 'Existence', Itself, does depend on 'things' and/or on 'others'.

Now, if you do not believe nor accept and agree with 'this', then let 'us' have 'a discussion'.

If you do not, then some might infer that you can not counter nor refute 'this example and claim' of mine, here.

Again, existence does not depend on a thing. Existence is the thing.

'I' am also wondering what you are saying, and claiming, here, has to do with the question, 'Who and what is God?' and what 'my answer' to 'that question', exactly?

As expressed, your system is relatively rigid and dogmatic. It suggests a pantheistic-style system. It is closed compared to the ontology presented.

Yet you constantly emphasize openness in your comments:

See, unlike 'you' what 'I' say and claim, here, can not be refuted. So, if 'you' also became open, and then remain open, then 'you' too would also never be Wrong, here.

Your system does not reflect that openness.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What do you claim in your essay? In one line?

What you can't address has been well addressed for 800 years.

The concept of “existence,” as applied to contingent beings, should not be applied to God, who is not one being among others but the very ground or condition of being itself.

Classical Theistic Argument: God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens
Thomas Aquinas famously argued that God is not a being but Being Itself—ipsum esse subsistens *.
That is:
Created beings have essence and existence as distinct principles.
God’s essence is existence; there is no distinction.
Therefore, God does not “exist” in the way creatures do—God is the act of existence itself.
To say “God exists” is almost tautological or misleading, like saying “Existence exists.” It risks reducing God to a member of a category.

* "being itself subsisting." It describes the essence of God as being identical to his existence, distinguishing him from created beings where essence and existence are distinct. Aquinas derives this concept from Aristotle and Avicenna, emphasizing that God is his own existence or act of being, which is central to his metaphysics.

Get that? In God, essence, nature, Being, is, equals, is coterminous with, being, substance. This is Divine Simplicity. God is absolutely simple — meaning He has no parts, no dimensions - including time - no composition. Therefore, His essence is His existence, and His substance is His essence. There is no real distinction between them.

Heideggerian Critique: Ontological Difference
Martin Heidegger draws a sharp line between “beings” (Seiendes) and “Being” (Sein):
Most metaphysical systems treat God as the highest being.
Heidegger insists that Being is not a being—it is what makes beings intelligible.
Applying “existence” to God risks collapsing the ontological difference and turning God into a super-object.
In this view, God is not “existent” but the clearing or horizon in which existence becomes possible.

Tillich’s Depth Metaphor: Ground of Being
Paul Tillich, influenced by existentialism and ontology, reframes God as the “ground of being”:
God is not a “being” but the depth of being.
Saying “God exists” is misleading—it implies God is one item in the inventory of reality.
Instead, God is that which makes existence possible, the unconditional depth beneath all conditions.
This aligns with your own poetic framing: God as prevenient, sustaining, instantiating spacetime—not contained by it.

Logical Implication: Category Error?
Some philosophers argue that applying “existence” to God is a category mistake:
“Existence” is a second-order property (a property of properties), not a first-order attribute of individuals
To say “God exists” is to misapply a predicate that belongs to contingent beings.
If God is necessary, transcendent, and non-contingent, then “existence” as a predicate may not even apply.

From conversation with ChatGPT.

Whether He grounds being or not, He does not exist as anything else does.

God is, would necessarily be, existence.

With thanks to Old Thom.