You can think of God as whatever you want. However, what I find is that believers would define God in such a way as to make it more acceptable, less "ridiculous" but yet still drag all the other beliefs back in. In short, they try to define an "abstract" God but still want him/her to have control over their personal lives, or the morality defined by our laws.

I have personally NEVER bought in to the idea of a god as some old white dude with a white beard sitting on a throne up in the sky. Even the Bible doesn't peddle this BS, telling us that god has only ever manifested in human form when he came down to earth as Jesus.

So to answer your question, yes. Evaluating and re-evaluating the concept of god should be an on going process. Just like it is with everything else. We define our surroundings based upon the current knowledge which we hold and change that definition as new evidence presents itself or different understandings are acheived. Why should the concept of god be any different?

Frankly, I think we should just do away with trying to come up with one justification or another for a god. There is no sense in it and it is not a productive endeavor.

Although I tend to focus more on the Judeo-Christian traditions, just because I live in the United States where Christianity is dominant, that's not the only conceptualizations of God I consider. I don't think most of us are limiting our critique of religion and theology to the allegorical king-on-a-throne view of God. Whatever the claims put forth, whether by priest or by shaman, I require significant evidence.