[Serious] If I met Him...

[HappySkeptic]

The hypothesis of an extremely advanced technology doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. If it has the properties of a deity, then you can just substitute the term "advanced technology" with the term "god", If it doesn't, then there is a more powerful cause behind this slightly less powerful technology. And we will keep going into the regress.
If we consider a chain of actual causes -i.e. real things outside our mind, and not numbers for example-, then infinite regress cannot occur, since this universe, us, is an element of this causal chain. Clearly it cannot be preceded by an infinite number of causes.

I am going to agree with you here.  Any sane definition of a unitary god will have to be something like Paul Tillich's "ground of being". 

However, anything that demands worship, and intervenes in reality at the behest of followers, is clearly not a "ground of being".  The more attributes you give a god, the more you take away from its possibility of being a first cause. 

If it is a jealous god, how did it get that way?  What formed the attributes of this god?  I want the backstory of "god as a kid" where it got these insecurities.  The point is, that if you give any attributes to a god, you get yourself back into infinite regress, because you are now forced to answer "what is the source or cause of these attributes?"

I'm not convinced that infinite regress is impossible -- it is only impossible within the rules of this universe  The idea of "everything must have a cause" may be faulty in a reality with no time or where time is emergent and not foundational.  The current universe has a finite age, and our minds and our physics may never grasp "ultimate reality".

God is either irrelevant and ineffable, or doesn't exist.  Same difference.

[John 6IX Breezy]

1.  I will not accept a lesser definition of God because of the higher status inherent in "God". If it's not powerful enough to do the omni- stuff(knowing my thoughts, knowing my future, able to heal or undo me at a wave) then it's just a tiger. A tiger with fangs that seem impossible or super powered but still beholden to the same laws of reality that I am. An alien that created Adam in a test tube and dropped his essence here is not a God. A being that can read my mind or see my future but cannot bend reality is not God.

2. There is a personalized element to proving its existence. If I can touch it, it loses the awe it once contained. And the demand of worship while also bowing to my need for proof clashes. It is a submissive gesture to placate me with an illustration. I lose a few notches of respect for something so powerful lowering themselves to entertain my, admitted, fickle needs.

To address two of your points:

1. The label should reflect the object not the other way around. For example, research on categorization shows that when asked to imagine a bird, most people imagine a robin-like animal instead of a penguin. Both are birds, but robins are more typical. We're living in an age of communication where your concept of "god" borrows from every deity you've encountered in literature or religions. The most important step here is to discard this stereotypical "god" and anything inherent to the word, and work from the ground up adding only those qualities presented in Scripture to your definition of the Biblical God. My issue with the omnis, for example, is that they are post-hoc descriptions. They are not found in scripture in such a shorthand state. And to the extent that they do reflect Scripture in any way, they add unnecessary assumptions. So I discard them from my description.

2. There is research on the relationship between awe and our perception of the supernatural. People get a sense that there is something more (Gods or Karma) when they look at scenes of grandeur, such as vast landscapes or space. This is perhaps why many cultures end up worshiping the Sun or other celestial bodies. So I think its important to dissociate the existence of God from your perception of awe. I see no problem with wanting God to cause feelings of awe, but I think its a problem if you want awe to be evidence for God.

I can provide references to both studies if interested.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have it on good authority that the label does not match the object, as the label is personal and the object is not. We can add the omnis as yet another part of the label that does not match the object, I suppose.

We have ourselves an impersonal non-omni god. The only leg remaining is the intercessory one? Does this not-a-person that cant-do-everything...intercede in our lives in some way?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I disagreed that God is personlike, not personal. You agreed these words mean different things. Concluding that he is therefore impersonal is dishonest. Stop interrupting for the purposes of obfuscating.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that a yes on intercessory gods, or a no? As I said, I'm not interested in arguing the articles, I'm interested in how you view your god as a christian outside of those terms. You;ve indicated that you don;t think that god is like a person, and that you reject the omnis. It stands to reason that you might go for a third revision. Particularly since the next article is tied so closely to the previous two.

God cant intercede in a way that he's not capable of interceding, for example.
God would have no motivation to intercede if that intercession required a person like character, acting out of love, as another.