TS. I share your thoughts, no question, hence I wrote the essence is the same. I referred actually to: "God - Probably at the center of the cosmos....but where God controls or directs life from...". This statement might people make to objectify. It is the dual mind that might....one tries to create an image of what you have written here. The center of the cosmos is a place one might imagine WHERE. AND it assumes that everywhere else, but the center is not god (limitation). I know what you 'mean'. It's not about me. I thought about other people reading your expression. When I need to 'relate' to god what actually is not possible, then I use the present, it's no place, it is now. But that is just my experience, nevermind. A little story came into my mind. When I was a kid in a maths lesson, the teacher told division by zero has no definition, it is not allowed. The 'event' is invalid. I could not get why. I asked myself: Who forbids that? Why can one say zero divided by non zero is a valid event and results always to zero, but to divide by zero is not? Simple: When one has no particular object, one can share nothing no matter how many (objects) are around. Result: 'Each' object gets nothing, event over. When I have something (an object an idea), but there is no object around, then there is no event. Sharing / division does not happen. I cannot relate to / share with 'something' 0 that is no object. (In the former sentence is 'the pain' to cannot, lol). So to say to give god a name / meaning is like to divide by zero. Both events have no definition. In Physics the absence of something is a condition and hence an object, though. zero in maths is different. Edit: So god cannot be omniscient and god cannot be not omniscient. No relation can actually be made.