OK, perhaps I should have said that you're speaking of God as though it is some sort of phenomenon or concept. Some kind of object. A finite object. That's what I was driving at.
I'm mainly talking about God as 1) an experience based on 2) a certain view under which such experience is interpreted. The quote of St. Augustine I used would rule out "phenomena and concept of sorts" since if one believes one understood God, it isn't God. I'm lead to believe that the meditative experience where one perceives a God is not easily describable conceptually. This doesn't necessarily means it is beyond concepts. It means it is an experience which words can't describe, as many deep meditative experiences. These experiences are not stranger to Buddhists, but they go beyond them.
God is just a label, and we use labels wherever useful.
I sometimes say things like "God-willing", meaning something like "if the forces of Nature - which includes me - so determine it", or "if the causal force of the past - which includes me - so determine it". Like all labels, they are a kind of shorthand we use for convenience. I find that there are a great many other situations where "God" just seems to be the best word of choice, as with the example of "God-willing".
I don't use such expressions. If God is just a label, what is it labeling?
A person can certainly use any label they like, but "Spaghetti-monster-willing" just doesn't do it for me, probably because spaghetti monster is something made-up, whereas God, as defined, definitely exists (because you exist).
I see your definition of God as something made up too. The fact that I have conventional existence proves nothing about the existence of a God. Btw, if God exists, then it can't be empty.
You've just rattled-off a whole lot of labels that have utility, such as "emptiness", "primordial state", "Truth", etc. If all those labels have utility, then the label "God" can have utility as well. There's no reason why not.
I can call an ox to a rabbit. This means I'm crazy or don't know English. I can call a rabbit to a rabbit and ox to an ox. This means I know what I'm talking about. Not all labels have utility, especially if they are wrong. If I label poison as medicine, the consequences will be dire. This is the problem with labels: we must share their meaning.
I agree with you, provided that when you say "existent" you mean "inherently existent".
I've explained why I disagree.
Things definitely do exist - such as these words - but they definitely aren't inherently existent. Or maybe only I can see this.
Things appear to exist.
What is negated, as always, is only the grasping, the settling down on, and the attaching to an imagined inherent existence. These things are delusions.
The thing is never negated. It is not a delusion. Things are as real as these words are.
I went through this in the last post. Fell free to disagree.
The latter is not denied. Only attachment to a false notion of it is denied.
It is by the madhyamika. But even if I agree with your position, this has nothing to do with God.
You don't know how all people use those words.
If people don't use those words to apply to a phenomenon of any kind, or any kind of concept, then they don't.
And I don't.
Words are concepts. This is why the fruit of the Dharma can only be experiential. All the Buddhadharma is conceptual. The finger pointing to the moon and not the moon itself. Its Sadharma that is beyond concepts.
Saying there is "one", which some people call "One", is only a poetic expression. When there is nothing other than itself, then numbers don't mean anything.
You are conveniently ignoring the definition of God.
How can God be "subjected" to cause and effect when God is the All, and includes cause and effect?
For this reason God cannot be subjected to cause and effect, but nor is it beyond cause and effect.
It was you who said it, not me.