I read your comment as a fanciful steam of thought, then straight to pseudoscience with the last sentence. “Many scientists now believe...”

I think we need to stop worrying about what happens after death. We simply cannot know that. Instead, focus on this life and all that happens... the good, the bad, and the ugly. We start with us, since we do know that humans play a major role in all of this. But we learn to live with the paradox of life, and learn to live with the 'unknown.' And if that doesn't work, Vodka.

This is just a rework of the God of The Gaps argument mish-mashed into the Intelligent Design argument with a little bit of "What Is Consciousness" tossed in for good measure. That which cannot be fully explained must be the work of some extra-dimensional consciousness, and that consciousness itself is some kind of proof of extra-dimensional existence. Yadda yadda. It's a fun exercise but gets you nowhere. Philosophers are not scientists but this article really wants to conflate the two fields with out-of-context sound bites from somewhat prominent members of both communities.

Alan Watts and Sam Harris do a good enough job in each of their respective fields, as far as I'm concerned, because each understand (understood) the boundaries.

I don't understand why people try so hard to marry these ideas. Are we really that impatient with science?

All claims of all gods are absurd.

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

not science. but enjoy

Probably. The anthropomorphism of such a force provides the problems we face with anthropocentric beliefs.

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

Anthropormorphism

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.

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

Is what...?

sorry, that's as far as I got.

test everything, and keep what is good yeh

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

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.

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.

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.