Observer participation, verifiable through experiments in quantum mechanics, demonstrates the interconnectedness between mental and physical reality. The mathematical proof for the boundary of a boundary = 0 establishes the concept of sameness-in-difference and demonstrates the illusionary nature of separation.
These concepts alone indicate the plausibility of god to the extent that it lays the foundation for a universal consciousness. Then, toss in the fact that the reality we study is the output of internal processes, and then you realize that it's impossible to explain any event or process without invoking some form of mental causation.
Personally, the more I study reality empirically, the more evidence I find that supports the existence of god.
I think what you are mistaking for "god" is just the "universe". It is a giant organism of some sort, proof of its consciousness is US. Proof of its pulse are stars, etc.
But just because it exists, doesn't mean it knows or even cares about us... Or that it even has the capacity to do those things.
And it surely doesn't mean it created us, who knows if it knows how it started.
The problem I see with human-like gods is that they always seem to be an appeal to magic rather anything we can actually have faith in because we
know it to be true in the same way that I
know that I exist.
If you have faith in a 3rd-person god, then let's test that faith. How do you
know this god exists if it's somehow outside of you and you can't consciously detect it? The only kind of consciousness that I know exists for sure is my own, see:
philosophical zombies.
What do you mean by a "3rd-person" god? Monotheistic gods, such as the Christian god, do not seem to be 3rd-person gods. "I am who am" in the Bible was God's definition of himself. Are you referring to polytheistic gods?