could I therefore assume that if we all define God as all persuasive and existing wisdom, that God is the indestructible nature of reality and life, then could we not agree there is scope for accepting God?
Why redefine wisdom when it already exists? Wisdom only exists because of minds - rocks aren't wise. Nature is not indestructible (we are mortal) and so to define God as the internal wisdom of temporary beings doesn't feel logical. The idea of the Christian God in the West is that it is an external being not requiring any other identity but who condescends to enter the heart of humans and interact with them. Religion certainly evokes strong emotions however, as a non believer I'm still emotional and I don't feel that an external entity has forced its way into my brain and is altering its perception by triggering chemical reactions. I do accept that for a believer their perception of God is real, their brain is actually presenting their God to them. I think a personal conclusion I have is that gods are always a reflection of the mind that conceived them.
I'm not too well-read on eastern thought (I struggle to conceptualise the idea of the uncarved block for example as having any direct application to reality). The problem it has is with definitions in my mind (the more you define it the further you are from the truth sort of concept) so to equate God with wisdom or some part of thinking is to immediately start to move from Eastern thinking and you end up describing everything as God as there are no hard edges , merely interactions and intentions between everything.