[Holiday20310401]

Which brings us back to the whole point that God is a big conundrum, created by people, and it's true nature is of the course of transcendence.
Figuring out God is about as useful as doing metaphysics; all we need is to know that God's meaning is within ourselves.
Also, to think of God as a separate being,.. does that imply God has a conscience, or does having a conscience defy the definition of God? Either way, the way we see God as perfect, all knowing, not learning, would imply it's non existence, because in a sense there is no causal force or meaning to drive its existence.
I thought God was a construct of what is moral. So God's divinity would be that of humanity's ingenuity ability, the creature of conscience.

Once again, you could argue that God's divinity is beyond the need for conscience, thus we would get back into the conundrum, the transcendence, but what is transcendent is irrelevant to humanity's morals, making an indifference to humanity's moral evolving.

We are only within our capacity as a society to spread the idea of a conscious God, when in fact divinity doesn't need a conscience, but that seems amoral to me; therefore that would question God's need to be a potential to humanity's reasoning.

Let's say God has a conscience, and it can make every action at it's best moral standpoint possible, (lets say this is also possible). If I were this I would rather be of the most minimal influence to conscious sentients as possible, and being God would give it the ability to have no influence (concretely), right? So God becomes irrelevant even here because it would choose to lack potential to humanity for the better. It's perfection would make humanity boring, depriving any meaning to our existence.