The Dawkins' Fallacy

[Thumpalumpacus]

I suggest your learning "emergence theory," which you can find on the internet.  You might begin at Wikipedia.

I have, don't sweat.  Also, I suggest you shitcan the condescension.

When I say God's effects in the human mind, this is not physical in itself, although of course it is produced by brain processes.  As someone said, a thought is not a set of neurons but something else.  Thought is an emergence, not explain by physical entities, and the same with consciousness.

Given that functional localization is clear, and given that electrochemical interactions are required for thought, I don't regard this as worthy of serious consideration.  It eschews parsimony.

The evidence for God, again unknown discursively, is the overwhelming records globally and throughout all the past since record-keeping, attempts to explain mystical experiences of God without discursive thought and language.  Thus they try as best as they can, imperfectly.

The fact that religious experiences can be induced chemically or through varying states of meditation, or mental or physical stress, indicate that these reports of god you cite here are more easily explained by physical processes.  

You have an interesting take on how god might work, but I find it unconvincing.