We’ve known for quite some time that the universal forces of nature are without conscience and are simply reactions to each other.

I believe the typical definition and understanding of 'god' (or 'God' ) isn't impersonal. From my belief and understanding, describing the phenomenon you mention as 'god' lend itself to misunderstandings of what is being discussed. Einstein would refer to God when talking about natural phenomenon and those who understood God differently would claim Einstein to be religious like themselves. I would think we would be better off avoiding the term God in favor of other descriptions - 'natural physical laws', 'governing principles', etc.

In terms of humans personifying the inanimate and nonpersonal, I believe it is clear that humans tend to naturally think in think in this way. We are a pattern seeking species and we will find patterns where none exist. We will also find faces from random patterns. This phenomenon is apparently something we do from an early age since infants are attracted to faces more than other patterns and shapes.

The basics on god is that god is myth. Thousands of years ago the god idea explained things to a lot of people. Today it is nonsense.

Unless you can prove consciousness amongst those physics, then all you've got is another projection by humans onto the universe and calling it god. Not real scientists but pseudo scientists might go on about this stuff.

What you describe I would be more inclined to call "Mother Nature", before I called it "God". But I'm not even inclined to go that far.

This come across similar to the following:
This rock rolled down the hill. Did something make it roll down the hill? Gravity! Did gravity intend to make it roll down the hill? If so, gravity must be a god. facepalm

test everything, and keep what is good yeh

Is what...?

sorry, that's as far as I got.

Then explain why there is no objective evidence for a god?

Not any scientists I am familiar with.

If "it" is simply a force/manifestation of gravity or whatever, why think of "it" as "gawd"????
More importantly, what difference would it make to anyone (assuming we didn't fall off the earth...)

I hope 'god' is universal consciousness and that we contribute to it in our small way. I think of it as having innate consciousness, like Gaia or the bodily (motor) intelligence of a human being. I think it is impersonal, having a way about it that works and we can fall in with it or not as we please.

The is evidence for electromagnetism and the speed of light. There is none for god.

Many scientists? You sound like Trump now...

Without empirical evidence your ‘universal consciousness’ is effectively non-existent. If it existed it would manifest and be known. It might be that we have not progressed enough to describe it, the way people could not understand lightning in the Stone Age. Or nuclear forces until the 20th century. All known forces did manifest themselves even when “science” or natural philosophy did not understand them. The empirical evidence was (and is) there but no one could understand it. Not so with “god”.

I believe that starting the post of with "Is 'god'" makes the rest irrelevant. The exact same queston could have been asked without inserting the "god" word. Such as "Is there a governing principle that describes and limits the human ability to have freedom of thought and action similar to other universal laws like gravity and heat?"

Inserting the concept of god into the question is superfluous as if there is such a governing principle, there is nothing about it that implies a god any more than gravity or heat does.

“God” is just a label. To say that God did all this is just another way of saying that we don’t understand reality and have no idea what it means.

Yes, Universal Consciousness, if there is such, is a natural phenomenon. Giving a human face to universal consciousness might be justified if you consider individual conscious awareness to be an extension of the universal. In that case God is subjective. Of course thinking of God as having a human-like body is nothing but metaphor.

Physical laws are deduced by observation of natural events. There's no sense in making one up which has no observable effect and calling it 'god'. That's just silly.

Anthropormorphism

Anything could be, but I find that I can maintain peace of mind without depending on unsupported imaginings. If evidence emerges, I will adjust my worldview accordingly.

That said, I have no trouble using religious language metaphorically. I value peace and cooperation over war and discord. This doesn’t come naturally. Xenophobia is adaptive. Seeking consonance with fellow humans is a learned skill. It requires practice.

80% of my fellow humans carry worldviews based on god concepts. I feel no obligation to believe as they believe, but I find great value and meaning in finding ways to interact with them peacefully.

When they use the word ‘god’ I find that if I take it to be a metaphor that personifies the entirety of reality, we can continue in peaceful communication, and no one’s worldview is injured.

Intraspecies conflict is what will be at the root of our extinction.
Getting along with groups larger than 150 is unnatural.
It requires compromise.
Compromise requires practice.

That does not mean all the compromise has to come from my side; there’s plenty to go around. Separation of Church and State is a value I will stand firm on. But that doesn’t require me to call my neighbor an idiot, or insult his worldview. I can just remind him to read the Constitution.

There are no gods, they have all been created by us humans, ergo, fictional.

Invisible deities are imaginary, made up by humans.

As an atheist, I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs.

I feel comfortable with mystery in life. Science is advancing every year.

That seems to me to be a contrived, needlessly complex explanation for the rise of religious thought among early people who grappled with things like where the sun went at night and why diseases struck down some people and not others. I don't think these folks who lacked an understanding of heliocentrism and germ theory had developed a framework for natural limits of the universe, a constant speed of light, or some convoluted notion of universal consciousness and applied the "god" label to any of that.

Maybe it is DOG's thought that is limited, and we humans are the real gods, maybe this speculation is a complete waste of time too.

People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we tend to try to explain them to ourselves as best as we could at the time. Hence the belief in the supernatural (which is a bit misleading nomenclature because for those who believe in them, they are "natural." ). This is simply a human-assignment. We see the thunder and we assign it to a god. Sure, we have done that. But that doesn't mean the thunder as any other significance that it didn't have before we made such an assignment.

However, the religions as they have evolved to become are not simply assignment of human thoughts feelings and motives to something pure impersonal (that is, everything non-human, such as clouds, rain, animals, etc). They (religious beliefs) are like viruses, and depending on the social, political and economic environment that they find, and depending upon their own internal adaptability, they survive, florish and evolve, to ultimately fit snuggly into the existing power-structure. They are man-made viruses.

When the various religions are examined historically and contextually within their time frame, they evolve so much and into so many different forms, it is laughable to me when anyone ever suggests that the religions and religious beliefs have any other-independent source than man-made.