user8305: In Buddhism, is the existence of "God" accepted, or not? If not, what is the reason? 

user7309: Within the Tripitaka, the oldest and most authentic memories of the Buddha's words, the Essential God, or simply Essence, is neither affirmed nor denied. This is explained in The All Embracing Net. 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Metaphysical positions can never be more than speculation. The Essential Form that God needs to either Be or Not-Be is simply not evident within our empirical domain, nor within the domain of reason and logic. Mathematics even forbids Essential Truth within all formal systems:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
If you read Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, the deeply logical discussion of the Buddha's message, Essence within our empirical experience is denied evidence. 
The Buddha was careful not to speculate beyond where perception and evidence were possible. Because if God Is (and all the mess that option 2 entails for him in Plato's Parmenides), and He Is beyond reach of our empirical experience, Independent of all of this, then we are like the man looking for the most beautiful woman in the land:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-13tx.htm
(this is not an affirmation of Not-Being, Nihilism of any sort) 
The theoretical insight of the Buddha is now merging with scientific evidence with regards to the absence of Essence within experience. Background independence, conservation laws, flatness of local space time, even relational quantum mechanics, all point to a much more profound understanding of all this: 
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1
If you are curious how modern philosophy approaches the Buddha's message, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#NonSel is interesting!

user43: It depends on what you mean when you say "God" and "exists". In Buddhism all entities (objects) are abstractions or models, conceptual labels on top of mind-made constructs. So all things really exist in one sense, but don't really exist in another sense. God is like that too. If by God we mean "The Absolute" then it in one sense it obviously exists (since everything is included in it) but then in another sense The Absolute is just an abstraction so it doesn't really exist. It certainly exists as concept or model in our mental world.

8305: <p>In Buddhism, is the existence of "God" accepted, or not? If not, what is the reason? </p>
 7309: <p>Within the Tripitaka, the oldest and most authentic memories of the Buddha's words, the Essential God, or simply Essence, is neither affirmed nor denied. This is explained in The All Embracing Net. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html</a></p>

<p>Metaphysical positions can never be more than speculation. The Essential Form that God needs to either Be or Not-Be is simply not evident within our empirical domain, nor within the domain of reason and logic. Mathematics even forbids Essential Truth within all formal systems:</p>

<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem</a></p>

<p>If you read Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, the deeply logical discussion of the Buddha's message, Essence within our empirical experience is denied evidence. </p>

<p>The Buddha was careful not to speculate beyond where perception and evidence were possible. Because if God Is (and all the mess that option 2 entails for him in Plato's Parmenides), and He Is beyond reach of our empirical experience, Independent of all of this, then we are like the man looking for the most beautiful woman in the land:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-13tx.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-13tx.htm</a></p>

<p>(this is not an affirmation of Not-Being, Nihilism of any sort) </p>

<p>The theoretical insight of the Buddha is now merging with scientific evidence with regards to the absence of Essence within experience. Background independence, conservation laws, flatness of local space time, even relational quantum mechanics, all point to a much more profound understanding of all this: </p>

<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/en/mn1</a></p>

<p>If you are curious how modern philosophy approaches the Buddha's message, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#NonSel" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#NonSel</a> is interesting!</p>
 43: <p>It depends on what you mean when you say "God" and "exists". In Buddhism all entities (objects) are abstractions or models, conceptual labels on top of mind-made constructs. So all things really exist in one sense, but don't really exist in another sense. God is like that too. If by God we mean "The Absolute" then it in one sense it obviously exists (since everything is included in it) but then in another sense The Absolute is just an abstraction so it doesn't really exist. It certainly exists as concept or model in our mental world.</p>
