[lamchopz]

Don't forget to read the Aside I added to my previous post.

That leads to me to another point: thus far, what we've been considering is a God with a defined characteristic, somewhat an image of a physical being, say, of a man.

To me, if there's a "God" , it is an impersonal God, meaning that God is not a well localised identity sitting in one spot, directing the course of life. God is everything in life. This is another reason why I rejected all existing religions which employ the human image of the God or localised identity of a God.

Further, this means that God does not possess a finite mind like humans do, to actually lie back and decide what to do. "God", in my terms, would just mean the flow of life, directing the course of life. It's as vague as it can get but the notion of the "mind" is not any clearer. Can you define a "mind"? If you can, you will win a Nobel prize since it currently is one of the most baffling questions in neuroscience.

And this is, again, as I emphasised what this discussion has consistently neglected: the impersonal aspect of God.