George Hammond  wrote:
>        Pre scientific "definition" of God
>
>      God is defined as an invisible old man living
>      on a cloud in the sky who rules the World,
>      rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and
>      determines the fate and destiny of Man.

Actually, this type of definition isn't used in theology for several
thousands of years. Ancient Greeks defined God as the Logos, the
sentient principle transcendental to causation - you can see the
reminiscences of this definition in the preface of John's gospel.
Hindus _never_ defined God as an "invisible old man"; different sects
have different definitions, for instance:

God is the omnipotent, transcendental, omniscient person, whose
consciousness is the fullness of existence-consciousness-bliss.
(dvaita according to Madhva and more-less Ramanuja)

God is the Absolute, the one and only reality, and reality of
everything else is conditional and secondary. (advaita by
Shankaracarya)

God is both the transcendental Absolute and the embodiment and
fullness of being-consciousness-bliss; both transcendental and
universally present in the world; both closest and the most distant.
(according to Caitanya)

God is the spiritual principle (purusha) that animates the inert
matter of the world (prakrti). (simplified Sankhya)

Those definitions are mostly thousands of years old. I have simplified
them almost to absurdity, but the point can be understood. As for the
relationships of action and reaction, it is commonly accepted that God
is the measure of rightness, i.e. that God is the absolute good, and
that the proximity to God is the criterion of goodness. When we leave
out the images and symbolism, it turns out that the punishment is the
distance from God, the reward is the proximity of God, and that the
human consciousness determines the actions and that the actions have
the quality of consciousness, which means that the choice of evil
distances the man's consciousness from God and creates sinful deeds,
which distance a man from God even further, and that the choice of
good makes a man closer to God, which fills his consciousness with
fulfilment and harmony, and the result are the righteous deeds.

In all of those philosophies, human soul and God are of the same
quality: spiritual and transcendental. There is not a single religious
or philosophical system in the world, omitting Marxism, solipsism and
Freudian psychoanalysis, that would define God as an aspect or a
product of a man's functioning or existence; the opposite, however is
rather common, and a man is often defined as a by-product of God's
existence or functioning. 

As for the human relationship with God, it can be summed up to this:
there are several levels of reality, where God is on the highest
ladder, which is void of ignorance and suffering, and this world is
much below. The ignorance and suffering are prominent in this world,
and the cause of this is the distance of this world from God. If we
make an analogy with the solar system, God is the Sun, Heaven is the
hot side of the Mercury, and we're somewhere beyond Pluto's orbit, in
the Oorth's cloud. So, the cause of our suffering is not God, but the
distance from God. Actually, all the best things in our lives are the
result of our touch with God, however limited. Because of the distance
from God, this world is cold, inert and chaotic, it is hostile to
knowledge and therefore God's presence isn't obvious to reason.
Actually, this is a den of villains, thieves and criminals who hide
from God, and this is as far as we could get without freezing into
non-existence. So, this explains the thing about sinful and righteous
actions; also, it eliminates the concept of divine punishment; there
is no such thing. God doesn't punish, because God is the essence of
the reward. We punish ourselves by putting distance between ourselves
and God.

So, to conclude: 
God is universally present, so he dwells both within and without us.
God is real and exists independently of our minds and bodies.
God is neither caused nor affected by human existence and actions.
The universe exists independently of human consciousness and physical
existence; however, the universe isn't independent from God's will.
Therefore, human beings are subordinate to the laws of the universe,
but the laws of the universe are subordinate to God's will. But, since
the laws of the universe are in accordance with God's will, there is
no need for God to make any changes and interventions.
It is God's will that there be an alternative to Him, so that the
beings could choose the form of their existence; the absence of the
field of choice would negate the free will. However, some choices
imply suffering. It is not God's will that we suffer, because God
regards us as his children and friends, but we are free to reject God
and distance ourselves from Him, and to try to forget Him completely.
He made such choice possible for us, although he wishes us not to take
it. This is, by the way, the meaning of the prodigal son parable told
by Jesus. We can eat with the pigs of strangers, or to share the joy
of our father; as we choose, so shall we have. This is not just a
Christian attitude, because it is prominent in the Hindu systems, as
well.

Regarding solipsism, it is not prominent in any religion; not even
buddhism. A buddhist doesn't think that the world is an illusion that
exists only within a man's mind, but that a man's mind is filled with
illusions about the world, that his existence is seriously limited by
the pairs of desires and fears, that this spiritual bondage creates
suffering and that this can be solved by emptying our minds from the
preconceptions and ideas about the world and our place in it, and by
realizing the actual reality as it is. This, in fact, says that our
personal world is illusory, not real, and that there is a real world,
that we should understand by ceasing to project our illusions upon it.

So, in buddhism, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it,
it does make a sound. However, bound by illusions, living in their
personal falsehood, people tend to think their personal illusion to be
the supreme reality - so, solipsism is seen as the utmost form of
delusion, and its opposite, the enlightenment, means to have no
personal world - the actual reality becomes our personal world.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org