This is a very interesting article.
One of the biggest problems with talking about God is defining it. When people speak of God and use the pronoun "he" or "she," they are personifying God. In doing so it is difficult to conceive of most of what has been attributed to God. Little of it makes sense.
God is literally the deus ex machina. It is a catch-all concept used to explain the unexplainable by way of a being that is outside the machinery of the mind, life, consciousness, physical structures, phenomena, etc.
When people make statements about God, life, purpose, meaning, and so on, I am moved to ask, "How do you know that to be true?" This isn't a challenge, it is a question that asks why someone would say something so definitively without being able to actually know it personally. Of course people are quick to say they know what God is and they witness his wondrous miracles every day. But these are just ideas based on a person's belief system and the ridiculous amounts of information stored in the brain or wherever else it may be stored. Does a person with extensive amnesia know what God is if that person has forgotten all of what he has heard and read about God?
People invent their own cosmos and then are satisfied and sure of what they have invented. As you show, these ideas fall apart under scrutiny.
None of this would matter very much, except as a mental exercise, as long as people's ideas didn't impinge upon others.
Is God really the absolute as so many people like to say? How can God be fundamental if he changes, acts, thinks, and so on? It would seem that something fundamental would have to be reliably so, and nothing that changes is reliable. A movie screen is fundamental to a movie and the audience. It just sits in the background and enables the movie to exist for a short period of time — 90 minutes to a couple of hours. All that happens in the movie, including shootings, floods, fire, and trash dumpsters, occurs because the screen exists, yet the screen itself never gets bullet holes, wet with water, burned, or odiferous.
The more I look at the concept of God the more it seems like a human invention. And it's not even a good one, because it doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, it seems rather limiting to demand that everything that exists should be falsifiable by the scientific method. Who came up with this standard? Science is a great thing and has solved so many of our problems, but it seems rather limiting to suggest that it should be the final arbiter of what is real, possible, or provable. And on the other other hand, beliefs are far more problematic.
