The concept of personal God strikes a note discordant with itself—at least certain implicative trajectories released from the conceptual components of ‘personal God’ contradict one another. Such a reality does not seem obtainable actually. The basic assumptions underpinning the concept of God, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, deny a formal and therefore limited God. Forms limit things, and the limits things have are determined by their forms, and the quality/capability of things are what their forms (by dint of their structural realities/constraints/possibilities) allow them. Once God has a definite form (at a time, if he/she/it can change forms at will), God becomes limited by his/her/its own composition and then when he/she/it has hands, legs, eyes there will be places where his/her/its hands, legs, eyes are absent, and there will be things his/her/its consciousness does not focus on while it is focused on something else or the other.
This argument leads us to the concept of God which exists as consciousness. The concept of consciousness does not close the book but rather opens up further issues: What is the nature of this consciousness? How does this consciousness work? Can this consciousness be fully self-conscious or be fully conscious of its whole being?
Formlessness of God is not to be understood as not having a definite form at a time which simply means formal indefiniteness, not formlessness. Infinity/eternity denies form as his/her/its self. Formlessness presupposes infinity/eternity. Thus, it is not possible for God/consciousness to be fully conscious of its whole self/being because it is not possible to contain or wrap up endlessness. However, we have to note here that consciousness does not necessarily have to hold an object, because its ontology is independent of any object (the conscious self as its own object or an other). Consciousness is on its own, it is independent and purposeless.