It seems to me that people often get into heated debates about whether God exists without ever bothering to answer the question: if he did exist, what would he be?
And it's a question that matters, because there are so many different conceptions. You might find a debate between a theist and an atheist where both view the other as stupid because (according to the atheist) the theist cannot understand that there is no beardy old man floating in the sky and (according to the theist) the atheist is ignorant of the experience of the divine that he gained during meditation, or something. The point being: there is no meaning to a debate about whether 'God' exists until we've defined what he (or she, or it) would be if he existed.
So assuming God does exist, what is 'God'? Do you take Spinoza's view and see God as synonymous with nature? Do you take a gnostic view and see 'God' as the experience of gnosis? Do you see him, as Freud did, as synonymous with the oedipal Father or, as Jung did, as a basic necessity of human nature, an archetype in the collective unconscious? Do you take the Bible literally and see Him as the 'Lord of all creation'? Are you a pantheist, a panentheist, a monotheist, a polytheist?