Do you think would be reasonable option to perceive the "nature of God" as de-personified and regarded as force that acts in random ways?

You mean like the big electron?

Yeah maybe. -I couldn't make out the sound too good.

It is a conundrum to me that humans worship an omniscient God, but the characterize it like a person?

Three questions. I'll offer answers to each.
1)This is more or less how Einstein articulated his "God"--- Nature and the forces encompassed by natural processes as the source of creation and all physical laws. He believed in no personal, anthropomorphic gods. Nor do I. 

2)Prayer in its essence, is self-cancelling; for those who believe that their deity has a plan or is all-omniscient, the thought that such a divinity would either alter that plan based on the pleading of one already "factored in", or not have already foreseen said pleading, shows the futility of prayer is lost on them. 

3)God(s) cannot, by definition ---existing outside of time and space--- be predictable; if that were the case, why pay homage? We are told, in various faiths that "God will provide", or that "God leads astray whom He will". When events transpire that defy the purview of intelligible religious explanation, and those events fall in our favor (miracles?), it is said, "God is great"; but when such events cause destruction, suffering or dismay (the devil?) it is said, "God is mysterious". I'd submit the only thing predictable is the rationalization. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 1, 2017 12:38 PM MDT

He is a God of order and predictability but he also has his free will, just like the rest of us.  This post was edited by Art Lover at April 1, 2017 12:55 PM MDT

Nothing reasonable about perceiving the nature of God in ways contrary to scripture for a Christian. If you do you really are not a Christian at all.

Dear Kittigate,

Yes I consider your option entirely reasonable...because I think what can be called "God" comes to us entirely in our own unique ways!
So for example when Native Americans perceive the special powers of animals, then that is how it happens. Albert Camus (French Resistance WWII, Nobel laureate 1957) said, "I don't believe in God, and I am not an atheist," and that is how things worked out for him.

One of my current favourites is Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the scientist, who thinks God must be unknown; so, "God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

And George Carlin is wonderful, superb wisdom, lovely connection with...whatever.
"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

* * *
The point being, imo there is nothing objective 'out there' that we must conform to, it comes to us as WE are.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 1, 2017 4:23 PM MDT

The Nature of God is Love

If a god existed it would not be something we created in our own image (like the ancient pantheons or the Abrahamic god) but an energy. By definition (since it is a god) it would have to be an intelligent, possibly purposeful energy. In folksy terms we might think of it as mother nature.

Unpredictable? I doubt it. Such a god, having created its universe (for whatever purpose) would set certain processes into motion. These would function according to natural laws. Our education, experience, and skill at interpreting such laws would determine how predictable they are. Their randomness would be relative.

Einstein is often misquoted on this subject. What he really said was, "God doesn't play dice with the Universe: he prefers card games."