only comes into prominence when one conceives of a God that has a separate existence rather than an immanent presence as a complete and unified whole containing all that is and is not and potential.
So, once you move from away from that, then the concept of God becomes an idol, in a sense--an anthropomorphic projection subject to interpretation. When you go by the Western notions of the Ultimate God, then the criteria claim omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. You could include transcendent, (yet all inclusive) and non-dual as in a unified whole, (one thing only) that then comes down to paradoxical descriptions.
In that case, there it is rather contradictory to imagine a God that comes and goes or is subject to unity vs. separation because those are all relative, conceptual terms relating to the abstract imaginings of the mind and its habits, patterns and perspectives, which are limited in scope and capacity. Those limits include the rather narrow, linear constrictions of thought in its temporal unfolding where cause and effect, (or Karma) appears to be true. Yet, you could easily say that, all in all, we are here right now and this is the way this is because of the entire Universe itself.
In that case, the question is moot. While you could say that people can intuit those "laws' and trust them to be inherit in the nature of reality itself, they are subject to context, tradition and interpretation. The Tao Te Ching falls in along those lines without positing a personage of God and referring to the dynamics of nature itself as evidence of the basic, primal, dual relationship of yin and yang of the Watercourse Way, or flow of it all.
The implications of the transcendent Beingness of the Universe not only puts God in the very hear and now as direct experience, but also, as in some Eastern methodologies, as the very core and nature of our own being as in Tat Tvam Asi: That thou art! That could be called Presence.
= new reply since forum marked as read