The content of the word “God” and the content of a word like “singularity” are nearly the same. They are functional synonyms.
The differences are due to different intensities of exegesis. The “God” adherents have just spent more time reasoning about their concept, so there is more articulated content on the books. The “singularity” adherents have an aversion to sounding mystical or using the word “person”, so they stop the conversation sooner, and go to dinner.
But language itself is a conspiracy to irritate the non-theists, because if we don’t truncate the conversation in order to go to dinner, a huge person will sneak in to our sentences.
It’s simply a size problem. We can’t use a noun or verbs to describe what we are talking about, because these are all words with borders around them. But with “God” and “singularity” the content of both is “everything that exists”. Let’s denote this as x. It’s easier to type.
So, x, everything. We must both agree that self-awareness, or something called “consciousness”, is part of x. After all, we are talking about it, even if we struggle to define it. We have it inside ourselves. And the noun we use to signify a thing with self-awareness is “person.” So it’s not possible, except through studied self-hypnosis, to avoid thinking of x as a person. Person, to differentiate this from you and me.
Now it doesn’t necessarily follow that if I am a person, and you are a person, that we live in a larger Person. The matrix might not be self-aware, even though its individual atoms are. The effects might indeed have a quality not found in the cause. An uncaused dimension.
I know there are big objections from my theist camp to talking about God as “everything that exists”. I’m aware of the historical anxiety among the theists to avoid pantheism. I embrace all the guardrails they’ve built, but this discussion can’t go into all that nuance. I believe once we refine our vision of God so that we see a Person, the danger of pantheism melts away under bright light. So I think those arguments are largely semantic; we believe that everything has originated in God, so we must believe that what originated in Him is still in Him. And, if you are a theist, you can’t conceive of anything that did not originate in Him, so you can’t conceive of anything that is not in Him. In some sense.
Similarly for “singularity”. Everything that exists comes from the singularity. If you are aware of something that is not from it, then you don’t have a meaningful singularity. There’s a lot of careful lawyering of language at this point, all to avoid implying any agency exists anywhere except inside the singularity, even though the debater, who is concerned to keep the “singularity” impersonal, would typically describe himself as a person. Which is all an odd mental contortion.
So if you are not a theist and you can’t attribute to the origin anything like self-awareness, you object to the word “person”, or “personal”. But let’s just note that whatever you mean by the word “person”, it comes out of whatever you mean by a word like “singularity”, or “cosmos”, or whatever word is fashionable at your moment, all to avoid the personal pronoun. “He”.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you think this is projection. If you do, if you think only persons are self-aware but the singularity is not (how would you know?), you are positing that some quality, feature, pattern, or other word of your choosing exists in the data set you call “me” but did not come from the singularity.
Everything is personal. Ergo, the origin must be a Person. Ergo, avoiding the personal pronoun is a cultivated dishonesty.