IMO once you demote God from an utterly transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity to a mere being among other beings, you undermine the best reasons to believe in God in the first place.
I agree. That's sort of the point. What reason is there to think a God who is a mere being actually exists?
God could be incredibly powerful, knowing, etc... but not this infinite magic power/knowledge level.
Some could call the state of the universe as evidence.
But the point is, if we learn at the moment of death what God's true nature is, and it's almost exactly what you thought, but not omnipotent or omniscient... wouldn't you still follow God and call God "God"? Do you love God, or do you love power and knowledge?
God's existence is most clearly knowable as the source of the universe, why there is something rather than nothing and why regularity exists. It makes no sense to then conclude that the God who created the cosmos and sustains it in existence is not all powerful over his creation. It would be analogous to arguing JR Tolkien isn't all powerful over Middle Earth.
As for your question, I would follow if said being is omnibenevolent, but such a being would not be, nor would I call it, God. It would merely be a sort of mega angel, though nevertheless worthy of our love.
Poll
