"God" is such a heavily loaded term. Ridiculously so in fact - it is illusive to some and concrete to others, connected to blame, nonsense corruption and blind authoritarianism but also to compassion, wisdom, love and the capacity to appreciate good and freedom. Some see it as a singular notion while others believe it is conceptually different for every individual. However if we strip heavy doctrine and scientific jargon away and simply look at the nature of being in a philosophical sense, perhaps a notion of God or an ultimate cosmological constant of existence is clarified?

1). Ideals. It doesnt matter if you are a theist or atheist, moral values and human justices, the prevalence of heroes and good over bad, the fundamentals of ethics, can be reasonably agreed upon by the majority. It would be ideal to be ideal. Perfection is a very strong ambition throughout human endeavour. Perfection of power and control, of knowledge/wisdom, of recognition and moral status, of art, communication and the expression of self - all seem to be ambitions in every human disciplines. Theism and atheism similarly. God as a perfect state of being could be called by any name by any person but all the same dictates humanities path through history of continuous adjustment and improvement. Of evolution.

2). Explanation. Theists begin with God as an answer I guess and explain from him or her or them outwards to us. While science begins with the observations of conscious awareness and extend outwards to the universe. Despite the differing directions and perspectives both modes of rationalisation are trying to achieve an explanation for existence. If we combine the notion of God with a notion of some universal basic constant that gives rise to other phenomena it is clear it permits any personality type, construction or view both imagined or physical to exist - freedom of form, identity and will/ purpose. A process of constant creation and destruction.

3). Energy. In one sense of God, he is supposedly omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. In science we casually use energy as a term to explain everything as it underpins all interactions and forms in space (omnipresence), all levels of power to do work (omnipotent) and all information - matter, action, relativity and consciousness/awareness (omniscience). One mode of interpretation personifies this most bizarre and indescribable of phenomena while the other objectifies it as a physical substance of the universe. When ultimately it is explicitly neither because it is both. We would do well to fully describe energy but it would be next to impossible as its main quality is "change" and that is profound in it's own right.

4). Meaning. I would argue that if we had an answer to everything we would be elated at first but then quickly become depressed. Meaning and triumph and purpose comes from winning each step rather than reaching the last. Also the nature of questions is that they naturally create more. Information forms new information through change. If I define something - such as the sun with multiple questions and say reach a point where now I have defined it to the level of nuclear fusion and have a pretty full understanding of stars and all their qualities. Then I have to begin all over again with "nuclear fusion" or the colour "red" or "gravity" and their relationships with everything else and so on. Definitions continue to lead to a necessity to further qualify each of them in an endless spiral of interaction and change. It seems less important to ask "Does a God exist?"and rather "How would a God exist if I were to ever be able to comprehend something of that magnitude?" -ie. A phenomenon that permits all of our questioning, free will, change and meaning as we experience the universe around us.