No. God defined as totality is actually still totality, not God. Otherwise totality would not itself be defined and called totality in the first place. Also you can't define things into existence. You define something, then demonstrate that something's existence separately. All you could demonstrate there would be totality not God. Arbitrarily renaming totality to God is just word play. If I defined Gilbert as God+1 , would you say Gilbert then exists by that definition?
As I define totality relating to God, the totality is everything within the Universe and everything outside of the Universe combined, in total, the totality, which is God. That is the totality of everything, and that I am using to define God. The Universe exists, and if there is something outside of the Universe, that also exists. If the combined totality of the Universe and all that is outside of the Universe exists, and if I define that as God, then God exists. If stu were to take a dump in his pants, would the totality of stu be greater because of the dump in his pants? Or would the totality of the dump in his pants, having come from stu, not change the totality of stu. I have explained the absurdness of your God +1 before. If you can add to a thing, then that thing is not complete, as what you are adding to something exists outside of that thing. 1 can not be added to God. Impossible. God is everything, so adding 1 to God is just taking something within God and moving it somewhere else within God, making a claim of adding it to God. Absurd of course. God is everything, including all numerical values. These numerical values are within God. So adding 1 to God is meaningless and impossible. The totality cannot be added to by something outside of totality, because totality included everything. There is by definition nothing outside the totality of all that exists, or could possibly exist. Just as we know from physics, all that exists exists within some kind of field, the field of God is God himself, and that totality which is God includes all fields and all possible fields. The totality could change in size by multiplying itself, but it would always remain the totality. The totality could not remove part of itself to create something outside of itself, as there would be no separate place to remove from the totality and create something separate from the nature of the totality. Just like stu shitting in his own pants by shitting himself, taking his own shit and smearing it on himself does not increase the totality of stu. He is taking from himself and applying to a different area of himself, but the totality of stu remains unchanged...though now quite shitty on the outside... God is totality, entirety, the sum of all existing and possibly existing parts. Therefore by definition of totality=God, God exists. Because totality always exists, it is not possible at any time for there not to be a totality. God exists, always has, always will...by definition.
it's like i say leprechaun and then you go; well if we call midgets leprechauns then leprechauns do exist
Interesting question. I think Barth answers the question quite well, from the Christian perspective: "....If we are not concerned with the God who in God's Word gives Himself to the Church to be known; or if we think about this God as if He also were an entity freely chosen and called "God" on the basis of a free choice; if He is known otherwise than with this constraint [the revelation of God in His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ ]; if it is therefore possible to treat of Him openly or secretly like one of those freely chosen and designated entities, and to form Him after their image; then we must not be surprised if we find ourselves in a position where the reality and possibility of our knowledge of God is at once questioned again from without, a position where we begin to experience anxiety and doubt; and this will apply most heavily, not at once to the particular and perhaps unconquerable content of knowledge, but to its possibility and reality as such. For if the knowledge of a "God" is or even can be attacked from without, or if there is or even can be anxiety and doubt in the knowledge of him, then that "God" is manifestly not God but a false god, a god who merely pretends to be God....."
I am not looking at this from a Judeo-Christian perspective at all... This is an ontological perspective... Beyond the pettiness of one religion or another, beyond the concept of heaven and hell and judgment day, beyond the limits of deism vs. theism, etc. I am not saying your personal beliefs are wrong, just that what I am discussing is God that is inclusive of all things, whether those things are known or unknown. I am defining God as the sum total all of known and unknown existence itself...though at the same time God is indivisible, as there is nothing to divide God into partial values. God has no partial value, no opposite value, etc.
I understand I would ask the question, however, if "we" can define "god", then it would seem that the extent of the "god knowledge" is limited to within ourselves, and therefore limited, and ultimately "non-godly". Interesting question you have posed, none the less.
If our mind and identity were in a state of believing we are separate from God, then of course our knowledge would be limited... If Bill Gates became an actor, and acted in a play where the part he played was that of a poor man, and if he became so deeply involved in the acting such that he lost his awareness of his true identity, forgot completely who he really was while acting in the play then of course he would feel impoverished...that would be his belief during that period of acting...even though that was not the true reality of his existence...
No it doesn't. You've defined totality and you've defined God. You have not shown that either of those definitions exist as anything other than definitions. I can define totality too. It's different to your definition and if I define totality as Gilbert, then Gilbert exists. Problem then is , Gilbert is more than your God. So all you do is say I'm not allowed to define Gilbert because you've defined God. It's obvious however I am just as entitled to define Gilbert as you are to define God. That's one reason why you cannot just define things into existence. Of course it follows that not only do you define childishness but you prove its existence by acting like a child as soon as you try and cope with it.