A Naturally Emerging God and Religious Belief

At first sight the idea of a naturally emerging God may be more acceptable in deism than theism. In deism emphasis is on the most foundational and rational aspects of religion and can include the notion that after creation God intervened little in the running of our universe (\citealt{Gomes_2011}).  Theism envisages God as a designer and creator of unsurpassable power knowledge and goodness who deliberately made our universe with the capability of sustaining life (\citealt{Holder_2002}\citealt{Kraay_2010}). In theism but not deism God will intervene in the universe through supernatural revelations or miracles, and this perhaps asks much more of a God that emerged naturally. One argument of those atheists who believe that the God of theism does not exist is that it is not rational to believe in the supernatural. This argument is removed or weakened if it is assumed that God emerged naturally by a process which is potentially explicable scientifically. Perhaps other arguments against the existence of God, for example the problem of evil and the argument from inconsistent revelations, do not differ in force between a naturally emerging and supernatural God.
The requirements of God in theism are extremely substantial and demanding. For example, the Wikipedia article on the attributes of God in Christianity lists twenty-eight attributes (see Appendix 2), including omnipotence and omniscience. These attributes and their importance have been the subject of theological and philosophical debate over millennia. Many religions also demand features such as heaven, souls and miracles. In attempting to associate these attributes and features to a naturally emerging God, appeal could again be made to the idea that it is not possible to predict the scientific knowledge of the future. Thus, in the future it might be possible for the descendants of humans to understand scientifically how these attributes and features could be realised by natural processes. For example, perhaps our stream of consciousness with associated memories could be preserved disembodied in a way that we now cannot imagine through current science.  Other civilisations elsewhere in our Universe or in other universes may already possess such knowledge. One version of the Kardashev scale involves an extension of the ability to control smaller and smaller entities down to elementary particles, and then to create organized complexity from them (\citealt{Barrow_1998}). Exploitation of this knowledge could perhaps render naturally what are called miracles, through transformation or creation of matter.  Some of the attributes (Appendix 2) seem compatible with a naturally emerging God without the need to appeal to as yet unknown scientific forces. 
One motive for this essay is to ask whether the belief and faith in a God that has emerged naturally and inevitably in an eternal existence of multiple universes could be consistent with or acceptable to major religions or religious perspectives or practice? Could this belief be tolerated? Is it strictly necessary to believe in a supernatural God? Given the great diversity of religions, could belief in a naturally emerging God be subsumed into the totality of religious belief? Perennialism emphasizes the underlying unity that the similarities between religions disclose, and that the one God in revelation is impartial, evidenced by long-term survival of the great religions (\citealt{Smith_1987}). From this perspective, to rationalize belief in a naturally emerging God, emphasis could be attached to the similarities between this belief and the beliefs of major religions rather than on the differences, such as belief or not in the supernatural.