Greendawn,
To me your posts illustrate very well why, in our present cultural situation, "God" is not (yet) available, at least on a popular level, as a "free signifier". Somehow anything we call "God" has to be a creator, or, more abstractly, a cause of whatever exists.
Personally the universe, complex and amazing as it may seem to us, strikes me first as not being made. Imagining the forms of the clouds, of the sea waves, of the star constellations, of the trees, of the living bodies as being fashioned or designed is nothing but a maker's artificial dream, the poetry of homo faber (craftsman) become homo sapiens sapiens. We cannot figure out how "things" came to be without imagining they were made just as we make things through technique. Hence our "creator gods" are necessarily craftsmen, builders, potters, etc.
On a second reflective level, our amazement at reality is no less amazing than reality itself. We are, yet we wonder at being as if being were something strange to us, or as if we were strange to being. Consciousness (which is phenomenologically human consciousness, at least until some evidence of non-human consciousness appears) brought about (or perhaps revealed?) an irreducible difference into the world. This mystery is our mystery, and it cannot be one, for it implies the difference between being and consciousness of being. From the beginning the logos was with God, other than God even if it was God too; other than being even if it was too. As far as we look we project, or retroject, this basic difference which is the mirror play of our own mind onto reality and whatever "cause" we ascribe to it. Our myths, theologies, or scientific explanations have to describe not only what is, but our own difference with and within being, by which we know. Whether he "learns" or not, a "God" who both is and knows cannot be simple (at least to us) because we are not. Because to us being and knowing is not the same thing.