This is just a silly way I came up with to define God, which makes some sense (to me) and is loosely compliant with the attributes commonly associated with God.

Let's define God as any "thing" that is all-knowing, all-powerful and omnipresent, and humanity as all of the humans that ever existed and will exist, their actions and their experiences.
We can notice than that:
- Humanity is all-knowing, because there will never be anything that a human will know that will not be known by humanity (since that human is part of it)
- Humanity is all-powerful, because no human will ever be capable of something that humanity isn't (since that human is part of it)
- Humanity is omnipresent, because no human will ever be in a place not reached by humanity (since that human is part of it)
Therefore, humanity is God.

You're probably disappointed. Firstly, this is captain obvious-tier logic: of course no human is better than the best of all humans that ever existed (at the very least because no human is better than himself). But thing is I'm not trying to reveal some deep insight here; this is just a definition, as arbitrary as all are.
Secondly, you might be thinking: "what kind of lame all-knowledge/all-power/omnipresence is that? It shouldn't be so relative to humans! At the very least, God should be better than humans!". Well, if you insist that God must be absolute, then my definition sucks, case closed. But before you refuse to compromise on that, consider how human-like God is in most religions. According to Christianity, humans were created "in the image of God"; but if we resemble God, then God must resemble us. In general, there is much human character to the Gods of every religion. But if you think about it, just like the earth is not the center the solar system and the sun is an average star in the galaxy, it's quite unlikely that there's anything "central" or "absolute" about humans. So in my opinion, a truly absolute God of the universe wouldn't be similar to us.
At the end of the day what I'm doing is, between the two contradictory ideas about God being "similar to humans" vs "absolute", choosing the former. I find this amusing because it seems like everybody else would rather choose the latter.
So, what do you think? Is this lame or neat? Do you find thinking about words this way to be sterile? Or perhaps if you have your own silly definition of God, I'd like to hear it!