Discussions of "God" tend inevitably to end up as "word salad" because the key issue of what is meant by the term "existence" is rarely analysed.

An alternative to naive realism (objective existence) involves the non-duality of observer and observed. According to that position, "existence" always implies "relationship",and "believers" are simply those who define their "self concept" in a positive relationship with respect to "a God concept" whereas "atheists" do not. In this non-dualistic analysis concepts relace entities, and physicality is simply one possible mode of "relationship", which may or may not be evoked between concepts, two of which are "self" and "God". "Properties" are not aspects of "concepts" but expections of the nature of relationships between concepts.(Think Heisenberg !)

(Ellis might remember the Croc Dundee scenario at this point).

Revlgking's attempt at a transcendent position...perhaps that "God" is synonymous with "relationship" or "the unity of dualities"... is merely a common expression of a psychological preference for closure of a potentional infinite regress. The ascription of "benificence" to such a closure is no doubt related to its womb-like security aspects.