It's true that defining God is no simple task. Certainly on an internet forum.
I think there is a difference between defining god as a chemical process and wrapping a narrative around our understanding of a deity. God as a simulacrum for a process we cannot perceive is a useful tool for the creation of a narrative to make sense of our experience in the world. If you refer to God, sooner or later someone is going to want to know what you think God is, and the answer will invariably be a fictional narrative. It seems to me that a narrative that includes a concept of a deity not only is unnecessary but probably counter productive.
I percieved something in my head and compared it to the descriptions of God by others. Using that information I built a narrative and associated it with scientific and cultural data at my disposal. I might use the interaction of serotonin, cortisol and various peptides as a physical location people's inspiration of God, but the deity itself is the simulacrum.
And that's why artists are so screwy. The idea is to pull all that squishy stuff in our heads together with something that can be empirically proven to exist in the world. The closer we get to erasing the space between them, the better the art and the more magical it becomes. Didn't you ever look at a watercolor you've done and thought, "Damn, did I do that?" Magic.
= new reply since forum marked as read