But “god” as a concept doesn’t exist outside of some specific religion. For example, in your case, I assume your concept of “God” is “the guy as presently understood by Christians, minus anything that can make him appearing stupid today.”

To see how biased your “concept” is just try to learn the basics of your and other religions. As an example, just learn about the “God” of the Old Testament — it’s not a “loving God”, not even a “just” God, and surely not “omnipotent” even if he is quite strong. Just a jealous, hating “god” primarily interested in keeping the “covenant” with his tribe, but often failing even that. In Islam it’s “a warrior’s god” except for being even stupider than Mo, as the later manages to win a haggle with him. I addressed the Christian “self-molesting” god in another post here.

I personally like the “concept” of the ancient Greek gods. The “gods” were by definition the beings who looked and behaved like humans but couldn’t die. That’s the root of the “mere mortal” concept: you are not a god, therefore you die. The gods weren’t even “all knowing,” “omnipresent” or “omnipotent” — read Homer to see the tricks one god does to another, which are based on their “human-like” limitations.

I’m sure your concept of god is not an ancient Greek concept, but I claim your, biased by the modern interpretations you were exposed to, is not in anything better than my, based on ancient Greek “completely human-like” gods.

Most of the myths involving gods including these in Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures, by the way, have more sense when the “concept” of the ancient Greek “completely human-like” gods is used: in the Old Testament the “God” is hungry and eats dinner with Abraham (if I remember correctly) in Abraham’s house (look for that nice part in Genesis, being hungry was “logical” as in these times he regularly received the meat sacrifices from the believers!) in the New Testament the “God” is again inseminating the virgin (just like Zeus did many times before exactly in the stories about him in the areas where the Christianity then took over) and in Islam poor “Allah” loses the haggle from the “more clever” Mo (what else would you expect from the haggling traders on camels — maybe the prophet saying drinking the camel’s urine is good for health — he did and it is provably not). Not to mention that all of these have worse temper management than the five-year olds, being very humanely “angry” all the time at very plain and obvious things (why would the “all knowing” “creator” be “angry” if the thing he created behaves exactly by its own nature and he knows anyway everything).

So let me guess, your “concept” is a “god creator” “all knowing” “omnipotent” “omnipresent” (maybe “all loving” too)? It’s nothing “universal” but in fact it’s a more modern concept which developed out of the embarrassment of many generations of smart thinkers who had to reconcile their need to believe with the texts as they are. The modern concept was, not accidentally, developed just to make the invention “as untouchable” as possible. And you like it. But I’ll have fun watching you trying to defend your against a guy who believes in Allah, which was also mostly constructed to be “untouchable” even if his principles are much simpler than yours: “he is merciful even as he kills unbelievers or even tortures bad Muslims in Hell forever and ever because only he knows what’s best, and we just have to live by his rules, period. And the rules include how you wash your behind after a defecation. Seriously.”