The answer is blindingly obvious.

[Asmodean]

Sure, by much the same token as you could say that your matchbox is that there carton of cigarettes. You may even store matches in it, so it could be true enough for adequacy.

If you were to say something like God is the collective consciousness or the intent of all of nature... That would raise questions because then, rather than redefining what a thing is called, you are assigning that thing, whatever it's called, specific properties which it may or may not have.

[Old Seer]

So then, a true God does exist for that person, and that person must conclude that his/her god is true for all others as all others are under the same powers. Can the existence of that persons god be disputed. 

[Asmodean]

Of course. I could call out your matchbox from above for being nothing but a cigarette carton, even if it may be a box and you may store matches in it.

[Old Seer]

Of course. I could call out your matchbox from above for being nothing but a cigarette carton, even if it may be a box and you may store matches in it.

Nature has no match boxes from above, The God term needn't imply religion or theism, but can imply the powers that one is subject to. I'm posting in good faith but can see where this is going. I will leave it here. 

[Asmodean]

Oh, I have no reason to suspect that your argument is in anything but good faith nor that it is about anything but good faith. (Word play intended) and I answer it as such

I think we are touching upon the reason why I insist on a workable, agreed-upon definition. My matchbox example from above is good for the purpose, but if you look for something within nature, we can easily do that too. It's not even about repurposing - it's simply a matter of whether you are calling something (or a constellation of things) that exists the umbrella term "God," or if your god is "reality plus." There is usually a more descriptive word for the former. there is usually too much wishful thinking in the latter.

So, what constitutes a god? If it's "merely" the framework within which reality operates, then sure, such a thing exists as described. Heck, perhaps even multiple things fit that particular description of god.

If god is the universe, then that god exists as the universe does. If god is the overarching intent of the Universe, however, then you would have to demonstrate - or at the very least necessitate - the Universe having overarching intent.

So, let us say that your god is all-knowing, at least within the universe we inhabit. that would mean that said god is at a minimum a 1:1 model of this universe. Such a god raises far more questions than it answers and does nothing to complete a functional model of reality besides. It is... Unnecessary.

If your god is ever-present [same constraints as above not to spiral wahahay into the obscure, though we can, if you would like. It's been a bit and a half since I got to compare infinities ], then at the very minimum, your god is this Universe, which you are a subsystem of. Why not just call it the Universe at that point?

If your god has a beard, can create mountains, can ignite stars and turn women into salt, etc, etc.

In order to properly argue for or against the existence of god, we would first have to agree what specific thing or concept we are talking about. What separates your god from any non-god? What is it that makes your matchbox a match box, so to say.

The moral of the story, to put it maybe-too-plainly-for-my-liking, is; there are more or less as many understandings of gods as there are believers. That does not mean that any of those gods exist as described - nor does it mean that all those gods are gods to anyone else's understanding. I think this answers both your question of whether a true god could (not must exist as that person understands it, but that it would not necessarily be "beyond mundane" to anyone else. (Your Ra is my ball of gravitationally bound hydrogen, fusing away into helium the darkness of space)

To word it more to my liking, if a believer can be reliably convinced that their true god is below their threshhold for what separates a god from a non-god, then... I suppose that's what happens when a mommy Atheist and a daddy Atheist read books about bees and flowers under a stork migration route. conversely, if I can be reliably convinced that, say, Jesus, is at or above my threshhold for what makes a god... Who says a The Asmo can't be saved? Well, technically The Asmo does, but do let us nevermind. The point is valid, if yet-to-be-achieved since Jesus has a LOT of threshholds to cross way before we even get to the whole divinity mess.

[RE-EDIT]: I do go on and on and on, but I suppose I opened a door that it would be discourteous of me not to walk through;

Here is my threshhold for a [general] god: a conscious, unitary, sapient system [being, if you prefer], possessing the capability of, through the use of itself, acting in an intentional and unrestricted (which also implies creation "from nothing" of previously-absent systems) way upon any system within its domain. (The very tail end is because I would be perfectly fine with a god, whose power was thusly limited within the domain of another god, still being a god)

[The Magic Pudding..]

Which version are you quoting from.
The new or the revised?

There is only one The Asmo, who is The Asmoest among all The Asmos, and His is the only True Gray Tome.

There are Asmos who disagree but none who'd condescend to argue.

[Asmodean]

All The Asmos love ratties. The Only True The Asmos, however, don't eat them. That's a fake the Asmo, right there. Blasphemous! It shall be judged for its fluffy wickedness!

Also, where are its Divine Eyebrows?! It is known that The Asmos possess Divine Eyebrows, and that thing's are... A sad excuse for divinity!

[The Magic Pudding..]

THE Asmo does not deign to reply to your most recent un Asmo like display of pique.

[Tank]

Question: If one were to say that their God is the total of nature, does his/her god exist. 

No. They just belong in a padded cell

[Recusant]

As with any belief one would assume that there are OK pantheists and pantheists that are not so OK. 

[Old Seer]

Question: If one were to say that their God is the total of nature, does his/her god exist. 

No. They just belong in a padded cell

Profile photo for Apoorv Gautam
Apoorv Gautam
Analyst (2022–present)Author has 227 answers and 544.8K answer views8mo

There is not a standard definition of GOD, the term has a different meaning at various places, but the core aim is same at every place i.e to bring everyone under same umbrella. And that's why the term has been created for.

GOD is simply a respectful title that can be assigned to an entity (whether living or non living) if it has a positive influence over the audience, and turns the people towards a positive direction.

The common reason why there is a need of god in every religion, is to change perception of people and make them believe and follow the ideas, which is otherwise very difficult to achieve.

    For someone, who has been thirsty for days and if you provide him a bottle of water. For them, even you will be considered a god or someone sent by god to save you.

And that's what had been happening out throughout the history of mankind, many religions originated only due to fact that they gave a different meaning to God.

    For some religions, God is one who encourages love and kindness towards the others.
    For some religions, God is commander of unity and his order is final and non negotiable.
    For some religions, everything beneficial to mankind (whether living or non living) is a God.
    For some religions, God is provider of strength and every outcome is based on his decision.

The reason why there have been a different meaning of god, at different places is simply to solve the major problems of society that arises due to conflict of beliefs among people.

    At some place it was more important to spread love and kindness among the people, so God had to be responsible for it.
    At some place it was more important to unite people and follow same ideas rather then delving into conflicting beliefs, so God had to be responsible for it.
    At some place it was important to make people realize the importance of elements around them, so that people preserve them and make best out of them, so they were assigned as status of God.
    At some place, it was important for people to unite people and provoke them to take decisions without thinking about consequences by considering them as will of God.

In my point of view, The various gods at different places is

One wise voice, that observes everyone and then guides/suggests them to a path, that would provide them a clear path to righteousness.

The voice speaks something at one place and something other at another place, it is not different, neither it is biased towards anyone.

It is just a wise and correct suggestion given accordingly.

    Thus there should be no debate on whose voice is it. It could be voice of anyone, it may also be depiction of anyone, or an outcome of something that gives a positive idea and provides a clearer path. Anything can be a GOD.

Concept of God is smart initiative taken up by some wise humans in the history, to explain the right path to a larger audience whenever required.
214 viewsView upvotes

[Asmodean]

THE Asmo does not deign to reply to your most recent un Asmo like display of pique.

See! That exposeth the fraudeth! For it is known that only a True The Asmo replieth and only the Truest of all True Asmos ranteth when He doth.