God is often considered to be a fixed idea or identity. God is most loving and kind in the treatment of his subjects. However that can not always be true because we are evolving. As we are evolving we are changing and God must change his ways of handling us over period of time. For example if we become evil then God must adjust his philosophy to bring us back on the track of good will and love. Therefore my question is : Is God a permanent fixed identity or is he evolving along with us?
Samuel Alexander (1859-1938) presents a view of God as as an evolving being within the universe. God has an existence now but a potential existence which will evolve into fulness. This view is presented in Space, Time and Deity (1920). A flavour of his approach to God is given in this extract:
His view of deity is unique. It is defined in terms of the principle of emergence, according to which nature rises to successively higher and superimposed levels. Although the human mind is thus far pre-eminent, the principle of emergence implies higher levels beyond, which will be related to the human mind as this, in turn, is related to body. Deity is this prospective superiority viewed from below, and God is the supreme eminence or infinite being, viewed with reverent expectancy by man. (John K. McCreary, 'The Religious Philosophy of Samuel Alexander', The Journal of Religion, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1947), 111.
Alexander's views are complex and hard to summarise clearly in a short space but, to judge by the terms of your question, he might be a figure worth exploring.
I am the LORD, I change not... (Malachi 3:6, KJV)
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (Corinthians 3:18, KJV)
Change is relative, by the way. The French say it best:
In 1839 [Jean-Baptiste] Alphonse Karr became editor of Le Figaro, to which he had been a constant contributor; and he also started a monthly journal, Les Guêpes, of a keenly satirical tone, a publication which brought him the reputation of a somewhat bitter wit. His epigrams are frequently quoted, for example plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose — "the more it changes, the more it's the same thing", usually translated as "the more things change, the more they stay the same," (Les Guêpes, January 1849). On the proposal to abolish capital punishment, je veux bien que messieurs les assassins commencent — "let the gentlemen who do the murders take the first step". (Wikipedia)
Although the dominant Western conception of God is as having a perfection that cannot admit change, there do exist philosophers, such as Hegel, who have an evolutionary view of God.
However, it is not necessary that God change in order to explain an evolving relationship with people as they evolve. As we drive down the highway, we may see what looks to us like a mountain that is changing. But the mountain is not changing, it is just that its position relative to us is changing, and therefore we are getting many different evolving perspectives on it.
This especially makes sense if we grant that our conception of God is (probably/necessarily) limited in relationship to the totality of God's actuality. Just as we see a mountain that changes, when it is really us changing, our perceptions and conceptions of God may change as we evolve, but that does not necessitate that God is actually changing.
We are here on a philosophical and not a religious forum.
Before we can approach the question, whether God evolves, we have to agree that God exists and we have to find consense about some of his characteristic properties.
This agreement has not been established up to now.
You make an argument that is not well formed as written. It is more on the fallacious side as written but there are still issues with terms such as God.
God usually refers to a being that has the following attributes: all knowing, all powerful, ever present, incapable of sin, perfect, etc. Nothing else besides those qualities is worth worshipping that type of being won't have the ability to even grant some prayers you may ask. You pray to be cured of cancer and the being reports that it doesn't even have the power to cure cancer but still wants you to worship? At least this wannabe super hero has a sense of humor.
In all seriousness, the concept of PERFECT does not coexist with the concept of evolving. If something is perfect, there is no need to change or upgrade. It makes no sense to say my life is PERFECT but I want to change z in my life. This is self contradictory. Clearly there would be nothing to change if things were perfect. There is no higher concept than perfection. Perfection expresses the idea that mistakes and errors are impossible to commit for that being. A perfect being can create less than perfect things. Perfect means IT does not make mistakes --- NOT that you are also perfect because you were created by a perfect being. There are reasons to make things less than perfect. Perhaps that bothers you. Because of the PERFECT concept that goes along with God necessarily, the idea of God being fixed logically follows.
According to wikipedia, theism is
a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.
Thus, theism posits that god[s] is/are affecting our world by their actions.
We may consider that those actions are not responces to what is happening in our world. In other words, those actions are independent on our world. This means that either god[s] is/are deterministic or all their actions in our world are occasional.
If we accept that those actions are responces to what is happening in our world, we must accept that these actions are parts of interactions between our world and god[s].
According to wikipedia, in deism
God... does not interfere directly with the created world.
While there is no interference that still does not mean god[s] is/are not watching what happens in our world. Of course, even just watching in our world is interference in our world but our physical laws might not apply outside of universe. But escape god[s]' changing in deism is much simpler. We might even consider god[s] no more exist[s].
The analogy from real life:
Let's say you have simulated a world in the computer. If you are tracking what happens there it already is changing you. Because that generates new memories in you thus changing your mind. If you're just watching, it is interaction in our world, but as I said may be not the case outside of it. Conscious changes indeed require some kind of tracking thus if you are consciously changing that world, you (as mind) are changing.
And many faiths (probably all) declare that god[s] is/are conscious.
Why just watching for simulated world is interference in our world? Because photons projected from screen can be reflected and (almost neglibly, but still it's not zero interference) affect the computer. Whether such analogy makes sense is another question. And I'd say this question can not be answered from position of knowledge.