Are they available though?

God is utterly unfathomable, beyond human systems of order, cognition and reason: the infinite transcends the finite. However, this understanding fails to take account of the "becoming space of time" and the "becoming time of space", which does not allow for any form of pure transcendence, outside human history, time, the universe. God is a human construct, and therefore subject to human systems of order and reason. What the idea of infinity in terms of space time means is that the only constant is change, that change "comes" or "happens" despite human attempts to control it, and thus exceeds the human. Space/time is truly infinite since it is not only the IDEA of a perfect, transcendent god beyond time, history and cognition. Space/time is infinite and not the idea of god, which is in fact bounded by a concept and is thus finite.

You and Cardboard Adolescent are going to get along well. I can tell already.

i don't know how comfortable i am equating the dialectic with god, the copulation of space and time may be infinite and necessary for experience, akin on another level to the copulation of zero and infinity. but this copulation does not necessarily transcend our finite human systems, since like Hegel we can construct dialectical systems which take into account recursion and self-reference. hence a truly transcendent God would go beyond space, time, zero and infinity, into a state of pure unity and oneness, a collapse of the dialectic, the absolute Void. see you there.

The idea of perfect unity or oneness, in Hegelian terms a final Aufhebung which would ultimately signify the end of the dialectical negation of "the other" and the "resurrection" of the self, and which would thus signify the culmination of history in oneness (another word for which is perfect sameness and non-difference), is indeed analogous the idea of the perfect oneness of god. I tend to think of the famous John Lennon song, impossible to imagine because of the infinity of radical, "non-dialectizable" culturally inscribed difference, i.e. history. The radical, time/space infinity of the discursive other/Other "within" history radically exceeds and evades the self's attempts to conceive and thus control it. The end of history in perfection - and here an absolute presence and an absolute absence seem to be two names for the same thing - is precisely impossible because of the becoming time of space and the becoming space of time - the infinite - a point which Hegel fails to take into account in his chronometric conception of history. Of course, there is no end to infinity, therefore God cannot be a perfect whole. God can cetainly not be both infinite, in the sense of transcending, overflowing or radically exceeding any attempts to subsume and thus reduce "him" and "his" radical transcendence under a bounded concept, AND the concept of a perfect bounded whole somehow thoroughly beyond (i.e. transcending) human thought (cognition, conception), i.e. a perfect concept for which there can be no concept because it is perfect and thus not bound to linguistic conceptuality, but which is still thought from "within" (I use this word with caution, for me there is no inside-outside, only infinity) the "realm" of linguistic conceptuality - "mathematical" word-concepts like "perfect," "unity"and "whole" - as a word-concept of the perfect. The absolute void or perfect overcoming of language (indeed "everything") cannot be thought from within language, which relies on an infinite and arbitrary system of word-concept differences for the generation of its meaning ("full" is "full" because it not "half full" or "empty", "absence" is only abscence because it is not "presence", "a cat" is "a cat" because it is not "a dog", nor "a parakeet", nor "a rat", nor "a baby grand piano," nor "Mobuto Sese Seko," nor "god"). "Void" and "perfection" are word-concepts, tied to the "non-appropriable" infinity of the human apprehension of language, culture, history, etc., and thus do not point to something somehow beyond linguistic conceptuality.

i agree that "the tao that can be spoken is not the tao," but I don't think there isn't any way out of the system. the system must rely on something outside itself. transcendence won't take place inside the system but in fact occurs when the infinity of the system--of space/time, self/other, matter/energy whatever you want--is revealed to be a hollow content-less circle... which must rely on some force outside it for sustenance.

Perhaps some time the perspective of other forms of physical comprehension will become applicable.

the implication that transcendence occurs within the confines of space and time ignores the larger unity of multiple dimensions for which there is no qualification. so while it may be that a transcendent being is not "of" the system ("the universe"), the broader "existence" is a term which cannot be quantified by measures of human knowledge, because it does not take into account the uncertainty of the system. in an infinitely-dimensioned universe (thus "dimensionless") there can be no qualification which can be ascribed to a "physical" being (physicality in this instance the proof of existence).

in essence the transcendence of a being is no more than a function of the uncertainty of the dimensions of a system. in a dimensionless system this manifests itself into nonbeing.

Oh man, you guys are dropping some philosophical rhetoric that's making my head spin!

God to me is a three letter word that I use as a matter of semantic convenience more than anything else. I talk about god a lot in my daily life and when I do I'm referring to the influences and experiences in my life that transcend the realm of egoic consciousness. People (at least non-atheists/agnostics) tend to relate to and understand the term "god" more readily than "The Quantum Field of Infinite Potential" or "The Void" or "The Superego". By strict definition I am an atheist, because I do not believe in an autonomous anthropomorphic entity with a will that is completely independent of our own intentions, conscious or unconscious.
However despite this belief, or lack thereof, I choose to interact with god (again semantics) as if "he" did exist. Because I believe that relating to "god" in this way adds dimension and fullness to my life. The pursuit of a relationship with the aspect of consciousness that is indeed transcendent can be a very healthy thing if it is perceived and practiced with the right attitude and understanding, but I will be the first to agree that organized religion is counter-intuitive and, more often than not, undermines the process in most individuals.
The point being is that I don't think its relevant whether or not God exists. In the case of trying to prove or disprove God's existence I agree with Cardboard Adolescents and Lao Tzu and say "The tao that can be spoken is not the tao" and leave any further pursuit to those who feel it important to contemplate further.

god and the bible are just rules to live by and how you should live in life and what to do and not to do, nothing less nothing more