Joe's two views of God:

"One is a view of God as an external entity guiding or controlling the universe from outside - more likely doing things by miracles rather than by following the laws of nature. My view is of a God tied more directly to the essence of ourselves and of the universe that surrounds us. In my view, God is the essence of the laws of nature, and thus there is no contradiction between God and nature."

Overwhelmingly, the first view is what is taught to children, and, I'd bet, the one that most grown-ups who haven't actually ditched religion hang on to. The second is the one that you have to work out for yourself if you can be arsed to rethink the original, or the one you get taught in seminaries. It's the one that is used mostly to try to stave off people like me, who "don't get God's true essence", "think he's just a bearded man in the clouds", etc. It looks intellectually attractive, doesn't it, but its attractions are meretricious. It's a substitute for the search for the magic of reality (as Richard Dawkins puts it). Take the "essence of God" from your wonderful starry night and not only have you removed a totally unnecessary bolt-on but also you've opened the way to a lifetime's quest for the real truth, far more scintillating a prospect than the abject, mind-cluttering deity. Of course, first of all you may have to unteach yourself the doctrine of not thinking for yourself.