Your argument against "many paths to God"

[Silmarien]

@Silmarien and @Freodin ,

It seems to me that a fundamental requirement of theism is that God must be capable (and willing) to have a relationship with humans. Some of these concepts of God are too vague to meet that requirement IMO. I've heard some people say "God is being" and similar. You can't have a relationship with an abstraction can you? It seems to me that a relationship requires something more like a Turing machine. (Probably God needs to be even more sophisticated than a Turing machine for us to have a very worthwhile relationship, but a Turing machine is minimal.)

Well, I do not really talk much about the relational angle, because I could talk all day about philosophical theism but am very confused by Christianity. I would say that relationship involves the experiential rather than intellectual aspect of theism, though, and there are plenty of via negativa mystics out there who seem to have a relationship in the absence of having much of a concept, so you can absolutely be convinced that God is wholely other or Being Itself while still being experiential.

Of course, when dealing with Christianity, you have the claim that relationship is possible through the person of Jesus Christ, whether that takes the form of Incarnational theology or something less ontological. Which, if true, introduces a million new questions, but I think solves the problem of how you can have a relationship with an utterly abstract God. There is a mediator involved.

Whether specifically Christian claims are true or not, I do think you need a cultural context of some form or another to actually delve into the experiential aspect of theism. A set of tools, if you will. My concept is actually more abstract than it used to be before turning to Christian theology, but I brush up against something of the experiential every so often when I never used to at all before.

 

[cloudyday2]

My concept is actually more abstract than it used to be before turning to Christian theology, but I brush up against something of the experiential every so often when I never used to at all before.

That is strange. So when you became interested in Christianity your concept of God became more abstract and less experiential?

I think you need to be scientific and experiential in your approach to God. Why should we care if we can't experience this God in some way?

 

[Silmarien]

That is strange. So when you became interested in Christianity your concept of God became more abstract and less experiential?

No, both more abstract and more experiential.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, both more abstract and more experiential.

o.k. that makes more sense. I was confused. LOL

 

[Freodin]

I am comfortable with "God is intellect" (whatever it might really mean) but find "God is intelligent" to be completely nonsensical. It's tied into to the notion of divine simplicity, which I am pretty sympathetic too--I'm not sure how you feel about it, as it's very Neoplatonic and one of the most abstract things out there.

I am rather uncomfortable with statements that have to be modified with "whatever it might really mean".
It plays so much into the different approaches that I mentioned in my last post, and the "backward thinking".

There is no logical or philosophical reason to state something like "God is intellect" (whatever it might really mean". No more than there is reason to state "God is width (whatever it might really mean)" or "God is purpleness (whatever it might really mean)"

It is, as I see it, just an attempt to use something that you "like" (which might really mean: something you prefer, want to promote or think is useful to further your goal) and try to shoehorn it into your system.

Well, remember that for the most part, we're dealing with analogous reasoning here. God is "life", sure, whatever that might mean, but that does not make God the sum product of all the life in the universe, nor does it make "life" a property he shares with creatures in a direct sense.

I am not sure your comparison between life coming from non-life and intelligibility coming from non-intelligibility is really valid, though. We have reason to believe that life did develop on this planet from non-life, but I am unaware of any scientific theory that claims that intelligibility is something that developed slowly in the universe and that at one point, the laws of the universe behaved differently. So intelligibility did not come from non-intelligibility. Rationality from non-rationality, sure, but that's a bit different.

And there it is again, the "backward thinking". (Remember, I said that this isn't "bad". It just might not apply here.)
You talk about "life" evolving in our universe. This has a meaning. A very specific one. You mention "intelligibility, and how it works (or not) in our universe.

And then you turn around and try to build on that an argument that includes "Not-Our-Universe"... and something that you claim to be "life"... but not in the way of our universe, but rather in the "whatever it might really mean" way.
Which means: you haven't a clue, but you like the sound and the connotation of the term "life".

I see a lot in your philiosophy that I agree with, but as with most (all?) theists, I think you make too many "jumps of faith". Unbased conclusions.

Yeah. On the other hand, the fact that I see both existence and subjectivity as impossible means that I find it equally difficult to conceptualize both non-existence more broadly and non-subjective existence. What seems to be a single sided question for you is a double sided one for me (and most theists, I imagine--I see people bring up mind and consciousness fairly often), so the approach changes at least a little bit. Sometimes quite a lot.

I fear I cannot follow you here. Why do you see existence and subjectivity as impossible? After all, all of the philosophies you use are based on "existence" and you believe in a subjective deity?
Can you explain?

Well, I do not entirely disagree. I'm pretty un-dogmatic, since I'm convinced that we are just building castles in the sand. Some are more promising than others, but at the end of the day, my favorite line by Thomas Aquinas is actually this one: "The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me."

I can appreciate the feeling that stands behind this quote.
In a previous post, I called my "personal philosophy", the "primal chaos" idea, a "feverdream". I can identify it as "straw". It is a nice idea, and has a lot for it... but nothing to it. I don't need it for my life. I don't base anything on it. It backs my atheism, but my atheism is not based on it. If it isn't true, it would make no difference to me.

And that is where I heartly disagree with Aquinas: I see "revelation" simply as an attempt of justification, to admit the fallibility of your "philosophy"... and still be able to claim the "Truth" of your worldview.

On the other hand, I think refusing to pay any heed at all to what you consider backwards reasoning can also be arrogant, in a very different way, since there's an equal claim there that the human experience does not in any way match up to the divine reality. I'm happy playing in the realm of "maybes", which drops me straight into Pascalian territory, but that is another story.

I have said it before, and I say it again: this "backward thinking" is not bad per se, not arrogant per se. Just when it oversteps its boundaries and still claims to result in correct analyses.

I am not a gambler, but when I "play with maybes", I try to base my decisions on probabilities, not desired or undesired outcomes.

I am not a convinced Platonist, no. But I really need to take another look at the modern arguments for mathematical Platonism. I'm more sympathetic to the position than I used to be.

I would say that realism in this context is usually Platonism. The alternative is nominalism, the view that mathematical objects, relations, and structurse either do not exist at all or do not exist as abstract objects.

The major names I know when it comes to mathematical Platonism are Gödel, Frege, and Quine, if you want to look into it.

I need to check it out.

I think you're at risk of trivializing the problem by focusing too much on the semantics involved. There's a difference between water vapor, liquid water, and ice, regardless of the words we use to describe these things. Every carbon atom may indeed have the built in potentiality to eventually ascribe semantical meaning to things, but that doesn't make the distinction between life and non-life dependent upon our ability to distinguish between the two things linguistically.

Linguistics is secondary in this case. But I think I am justified to claim that any distinction does indeed based on our ability to distinguish between things. Without distinguishing, no distinction.
The question in this case is just to what level we do distinguish. We do distinguish "water" in all its forms from other materials. We make no distinction here. But we also distinguish "water" between its different forms.
(And, nagging/nitpicking/nagging, we do that based on our experiences of the universe. Without experiences, no distinguishing. Without a universe, no experience. )

Shrinks, not grows. Well, depending on your perspective. A carbon atom would have more potentiality than a seed, yes. In fullblown Aristotelian metaphysics, this gets tied into form and matter as well, so formless matter would probably have infinite potentiality, if such a thing even exists at all. I'm not sure what the physics behind this would be, but we might be looking at concepts like vacuums and Absolute Zero.

Personally, I would stop on an earlier level for for "non-infinite potentiality". As long as there is "something" (in the "our universe" way), it is limited in some way.

That was the original basis for my "primal chaos" idea. If there is nothing - really nothing, not even empty space, vacuum and no motion... there are also no limits anymore.

 

[Freodin]

@Silmarien and @Freodin ,

It seems to me that a fundamental requirement of theism is that God must be capable (and willing) to have a relationship with humans. Some of these concepts of God are too vague to meet that requirement IMO. I've heard some people say "God is being" and similar. You can't have a relationship with an abstraction can you? It seems to me that a relationship requires something more like a Turing machine. (Probably God needs to be even more sophisticated than a Turing machine for us to have a very worthwhile relationship, but a Turing machine is minimal.)

Some people claim to have a relationship with an abstraction. I don't think this is... how to phrase this?... reciprocal.

 

[Silmarien]

I am rather uncomfortable with statements that have to be modified with "whatever it might really mean".
It plays so much into the different approaches that I mentioned in my last post, and the "backward thinking".

There is no logical or philosophical reason to state something like "God is intellect" (whatever it might really mean". No more than there is reason to state "God is width (whatever it might really mean)" or "God is purpleness (whatever it might really mean)"

It is, as I see it, just an attempt to use something that you "like" (which might really mean: something you prefer, want to promote or think is useful to further your goal) and try to shoehorn it into your system.

God is Primal Chaos, whatever that might mean?

But no, I just don't accept brute facts, so think that the intelligibility of the universe and existence of underlying laws of nature ought to be accounted for. I don't think there's any way to do that which doesn't sooner or later hearken right back to the nature of reality itself. That is where my sympathy to the idea that God is intellect comes from, though I qualify it because I do not myself subscribe to Scholasticism.

Maybe we've got a feverdream dreaming up infinite universes and ours just happens to be intelligible... that's certainly a fun idea, but a theory that relies upon even more unknowns.

I see a lot in your philiosophy that I agree with, but as with most (all?) theists, I think you make too many "jumps of faith". Unbased conclusions.

I am actually a Kierkegaardian, which means that the leap to faith is the whole point.

I do make leaps, it's true. I do not think any of them are unbased, though some are certainly more strongly based than others. I am not sure how to quantify how many leaps would be "too many", though. If I made one that there was good reason not to accept, that would probably count, but I haven't seen any really powerful defeaters.

I fear I cannot follow you here. Why do you see existence and subjectivity as impossible? After all, all of the philosophies you use are based on "existence" and you believe in a subjective deity?
Can you explain?

Sure. Well, I can try. I said earlier that I believed that both my own subjective existence and existence more broadly were impossible, and you responded that for you, it was non-existence that was impossible.

Which is true. Existence is really the only thing that is incontrovertible. I think, therefore... something is, so that obviously rules out nothingness as a possibility, no matter how much simpler it would be. But for me, subjective existence continues to be at least as much of a puzzle as existence in general, an additional datum that must be accounted for. Even the most robust forms of naturalism fall somewhat short.

I transitioned fairly recently from a non-personal to personal form of theism, which was (and continues to be)... messy and complicated, but this was a major factor. I doubt it makes much sense to anyone else, since there are heavy shades of ontology and existentialist philosophy at work there, and that tends to muddy the water.

And that is where I heartly disagree with Aquinas: I see "revelation" simply as an attempt of justification, to admit the fallibility of your "philosophy"... and still be able to claim the "Truth" of your worldview.

That seems a little uncharitable. People do have mystical experiences, so I see no reason to assume he was making it up to get a free pass for his philosophy.

Whether you think there was anything to that mystical experience is another question entirely, but it's pretty clear that they do happen.

Linguistics is secondary in this case. But I think I am justified to claim that any distinction does indeed based on our ability to distinguish between things. Without distinguishing, no distinction.
The question in this case is just to what level we do distinguish. We do distinguish "water" in all its forms from other materials. We make no distinction here. But we also distinguish "water" between its different forms.

Water would presumably not cease evaporating, condensing, and precipitating were we not here to take note of the distinction between water in its three states. There are genuine chemical differences at play here.

 

[Freodin]

God is Primal Chaos, whatever that might mean?

In a neoplatonic way? Why, yes! Just as "the One" invokes certain images about this idea, without declaring them to be the sole defining factor - even declining that there is a "defining factor", so does this term. But all in all it is just a fancy name.

But no, I just don't accept brute facts, so think that the intelligibility of the universe and existence of underlying laws of nature ought to be accounted for. I don't think there's any way to do that which doesn't sooner or later hearken right back to the nature of reality itself. That is where my sympathy to the idea that God is intellect comes from, though I qualify it because I do not myself subscribe to Scholasticism.

I still don't see how you get from "the universe is intelligible" to "God is intellect". And why this same reasoning seems to be neglectable when it come to other attributes of our universe. Our universe is physical, so God is physics? Our universe is mostly vacuum, so God is emptiness?

Can you see why I say that the theists claim those ideas they like for their God, and ignore the rest?

Maybe we've got a feverdream dreaming up infinite universes and ours just happens to be intelligible... that's certainly a fun idea, but a theory that relies upon even more unknowns.

Close. And while I agree that it relies on "unknowns", I still think there is a certain reason behind it.
First, while there may be "infinite universes", they all would have to be "intelligible". Because that's what a universe is: a structure. Structures are intelligble. That's why I chose to call the ground, the "nature of reality" chaos.

An analogy: imagine an infinite stream of random numbers. Within such a stream you will find segments that are non-random, ordered. Our universe is such an ordered segment in an infinity of disorder. (Very, very simplified.)

I am actually a Kierkegaardian, which means that the leap to faith is the whole point.

I do make leaps, it's true. I do not think any of them are unbased, though some are certainly more strongly based than others. I am not sure how to quantify how many leaps would be "too many", though. If I made one that there was good reason not to accept, that would probably count, but I haven't seen any really powerful defeaters.

Whether a reason is good enough to base a leap of faith on... that only you can decide.
For me seeing different people taking the same leap of faith and landing at a different spot is reason enough for me to be skeptical about it.

Sure. Well, I can try. I said earlier that I believed that both my own subjective existence and existence more broadly were impossible, and you responded that for you, it was non-existence that was impossible.

Which is true. Existence is really the only thing that is incontrovertible. I think, therefore... something is, so that obviously rules out nothingness as a possibility, no matter how much simpler it would be. But for me, subjective existence continues to be at least as much of a puzzle as existence in general, an additional datum that must be accounted for. Even the most robust forms of naturalism fall somewhat short.

I don't think non-existence - the philosophical "nothing" - is "simpler" than existence. We don't have any experience of it. We cannot have any experience of it, for the reason you mentioned. This concept is of of the most difficult, most unintelligible of all philosophy. It is paradoxical, self-contradicting.
Thus I came to the conclusion that it must be... well... different from the "common sense" variant that so many people hold.

Atheists often get accused of believing in nothing. Well, LO! Here I am.

I transitioned fairly recently from a non-personal to personal form of theism, which was (and continues to be)... messy and complicated, but this was a major factor. I doubt it makes much sense to anyone else, since there are heavy shades of ontology and existentialist philosophy at work there, and that tends to muddy the water.

As long as you don't threaten anyone with eternal damnation for praying on the wrong day of the week, we will get along fine.

That seems a little uncharitable. People do have mystical experiences, so I see no reason to assume he was making it up to get a free pass for his philosophy.

Whether you think there was anything to that mystical experience is another question entirely, but it's pretty clear that they do happen.

I fear you misinterpreted me - most likely I didn't make myself clear enough.
I don't accuse people of making things up. I don't deny that they have experiences, "mystical" or otherwise.

It is this certain term and concept "revelation" that I dislike, and the implied connotations.
You can "have" an experience, but you are "given" a revelation. Also, a "revelation" is always connected to "truth", something that is really there, really true, but was hidden before.

When you have an experience, you don't inherently deny the fallibility of it. But when you have been given a revelation... you claim to have been shown the truth.

I don't think this is necessarily a conscious choice to use this concept, but I'd say it is inherent to theistic systems like Christianity, and thus it comes naturally to Christians to use it. Even if it is not true.

Water would presumably not cease evaporating, condensing, and precipitating were we not here to take note of the distinction between water in its three states. There are genuine chemical differences at play here.

Presumably. That is not what I was aiming at. I though especially a Christian theist would understand it.
The water would be the same without an distinguishing observer as with an observer.
But without the distinctions made by an observer, it is just water. Even more, it is just matter. Even more, it is just existence.

 

[dcalling]

I agree that Protestant Christian countries are good places to live generally. I'm not certain if Protestant Christianity is the cause or a symptom though. Protestant Christianity could only grow in the more free societies such as England.

I might have enjoyed living in the Soviet Union. Of course that is gone.

Are you sure you might enjoy living in the Soviet Union? The one place comparable to it today is North Korea, where all live in (equal) poverty, and you can easily be detained without knowledge. On the outside they all look happy to the outsiders

 

[dcalling]

Another approach might be polemics. If a Christian can point-out flaws in the competing paths to God, then Christianity becomes the only choice.

So look at the major other religions.
Islam: Ask most none Bahai Muslims on this forum, and they will tell you Gospel/Torah is corrupted, but if you go to Quran you find that Quran asks Jews/Christians to be judged by Torah/Gospel.
Jewish: It is very similar to NT, but have heavy emphasis on works (i.e. you can do nothing on Saturday, not even open anything electric)
Buddhism/other eastern religions: They will tell you that you can archive enlightenment by yourself. Having seen human nature I believe it is impossible. No matter how hard you work, you can't get ride of selfishness. Only God can.

Christianity: Love God/Love your neighbor as yourself. None of us is good so judge not. We by ourselves are hopeless, trust in God only.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Whilst that is true of western civilisation, what about the great civilisations of elsewhere?

Yes, there have been other great civilizations but Western is easily the greatest and the best.

drp: Secondly what about the appalling harm that western civilisations have inflicted on the world under the Christian faith, the genocides in North and South America, the slave trade, the subjugation of entire peoples, if Christianity inspired the good, did it not also inspire the bad? I personally cannot square that circle?

Not all western nations are entirely based on Christian principles and also while many bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, they are far outweighed by the good that Western Societies have done based on Christian principles. Of course, genocide, slavery, subjugation, are not Christian principles. But given what Christianity has taught us about humanity, ie that all humans are sinners, such bad things are expected in the world. In addition, some western nations have abandoned Christian principles in certain time periods, such as Nazi Germany.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What do you consider good about Western Civilization? And, what do you consider Christian?

The concept of human rights comes from Judeo-Christian principles as well as equal treatment under the law. Modern hospitals, universities, and modern science were all founded by Christians and based on Christian principles.

yi: Much of the "good" Christianity has done in the world is certainly subjective - even to this day and hour.

Given how western civilization is starting to abandon its founding Christian principles, it is expected that those in favor of that abandonment would make a statement like yours.

 

[ananda]

Buddhism/other eastern religions: They will tell you that you can archive enlightenment by yourself. Having seen human nature I believe it is impossible. No matter how hard you work, you can't get ride of selfishness. Only God can.

Sure we can. Wisdom is the cure, in Buddhism.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The concept of human rights comes from Judeo-Christian principles as well as equal treatment under the law. Modern hospitals, universities, and modern science were all founded by Christians and based on Christian principles.

The concept of human rights did not originate with Judeo-Christian principles. If you want to be precise in the realm of religion - it was the Hebrews, and then Israelites that founded Christianity - which took pieces and parts of the Hebrew spirituality relationship, and claimed authority. Judaism is relatively new - considering the Hebrews immediately after Christ were actual Christians, and that the OT continually and constantly prophesied the coming of Christ.

That is the problem with Western exceptionalism - especially in the context of religion and progress: for some reason, the world must ignorant of the history of how the state came to be in order to "appreciate" the contribution in which the world basques - thanks to "Judeo-Christian" principles.

You aren't Judeo-Chritian if you can't even agree that all 10 commandments should be followed, or that God and Christ are the only authority on Law. That is another religion that uses Judeo as a buzzword to draw upon the foundation without being a part of it. You are not a Christian if you breed mother and son, father and daughter for the purposes of making more strong slaves with preserved gene in the generations. You do not infect an entire population with what you call an STD in order to study the effects like animals. You do not burn people because they seem to fit the definition of witchcraft according to your interpretation of the bible. That is precisely because Christ Himself told us that we have the authority to judge/execute sinners if we are without sin. And, since Christ is King, you commit a grave infraction against the Kingdom if you decide by your own will to execute someone when the King has neither given a decree, nor moved to do it Himself.


Much of the Western "Judeo-Christian" progress was on the backs, necks and in the blood of plenty of imperialism and slaughtered persons. The message that "built" and forged the progress we think of today was from deceit, treachery, blood and turmoil. The good that came out of it was residual consequence.

Given how western civilization is starting to abandon its founding Christian principles, it is expected that those in favor of that abandonment would make a statement like yours.

Honestly, do you even know what god you worship? Capitalism is king; competition permeates even down to what you think of as basic biological foundation. Western civilization has always abandoned Christian principles; in fact, every generation has abandoned God. The West of modernity is not special at all. Imperialism is not Christian. At all. The Church exploited imperialism to spread the alleged word through FEAR.

I have most certainly, and absolutely abandoned Western "Christian" principles. I won't be a part of a church that does not do what their alleged Arbiter tells them to do - yet convicts others of all sorts of alleged egregious action and character. They choose pieces of their holy canon they choose to adhere to that feeds prejudice and ignorance. You don't do the thing that were done in the name of the Most High God if you are for Him - and if you justify it personally, or for someone else then you are enabling such actions. You don't forget evil in an attempt to try to hide and erase it from history.

Western exceptionalism is the veneer needed in order to continuously hide what has been done in the name of hypocrisy and bloodlust. Of course, the West isn't new in this; what is new is the continuous denial of history as if everyone else is misinformed.

People remember, and they told their children. Their children remembered, and told their kids. That is how rewriting history continuously fails at the foundation - through knowledge and wisdom.


Usually I ignore people like you on these forums because it tempts me to assume you are of the camp that calls me a demon for wanting to obey all laws of God - as has been done on these forums. The curious things is that you could ignorantly associate me with an apostasy while at the same time remaining completely ignorant of my spiritual alignment. Since this was our first interaction, consider this a hard responsive welcome.



If you want to make a comment on my spiritual alignment, you should ask me what my alignment is first. At worst, I made my faith "Other Religion" so that people would ask, "What is your 'religion.'" It would be at that time I gave a full testimony. You don't even give me the decency of asking me what my faith is. I am not bothered or offended, it honestly bores me to deal with such hackneyed claptrap. If people are making statement like mine it is likely because of experience and cynicism in human honesty, character and goodness. I don't blame them; I said that the hypocrisy in the church give atheist and agnostics a decent argumentative point.

 

[Dave RP]

Yes, there have been other great civilizations but Western is easily the greatest and the best.


Not all western nations are entirely based on Christian principles and also while many bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, they are far outweighed by the good that Western Societies have done based on Christian principles. Of course, genocide, slavery, subjugation, are not Christian principles. But given what Christianity has taught us about humanity, ie that all humans are sinners, such bad things are expected in the world. In addition, some western nations have abandoned Christian principles in certain time periods, such as Nazi Germany.

I think we believe our own publicity far to much. Whilst western Europe was languishing in the dark ages, Islam built a stunning civilisation with scholars and scientists of all faiths living together and advancing knowledge.

Western civilisation has done some brilliant things and soem appalling things, as have all civilisations but none of them needed god to be good or bad.

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you sure you might enjoy living in the Soviet Union? The one place comparable to it today is North Korea, where all live in (equal) poverty, and you can easily be detained without knowledge. On the outside they all look happy to the outsiders

Happiness can't be measured as per capita income.

There is a psychological theory that emphasizes the importance of feeling a purpose in life ( Logotherapy - Wikipedia ). In a Western society such as the US with rapid social change and an expectation that individuals should do as they please, some people like me can feel lost in the chaos and unsure of their purpose.

 

[dcalling]

Sure we can. Wisdom is the cure, in Buddhism.

How about this. We can have a bet. How long do you think the wisdom in Buddhism (or anything else) that can cure selfishness? Set a time (10 years, 20 years) and if you can't do that in said time frame, come to Christianity and ask God for mercy

 

[dcalling]

Happiness can't be measured as per capita income.

There is a psychological theory that emphasizes the importance of feeling a purpose in life ( Logotherapy - Wikipedia ). In a Western society such as the US with rapid social change and an expectation that individuals should do as they please, some people like me can feel lost in the chaos and unsure of their purpose.

That is true, Happiness can't be measured by capita income. But would you prefer to live in a lie or in truth? Would you prefer to worship some party leader or the true God? John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. What I found is real happiness comes from knowing and following God, myself is much happier after I truly started following God, without much change in environments.

 

[cloudyday2]

That is true, Happiness can't be measured by capita income. But would you prefer to live in a lie or in truth? Would you prefer to worship some party leader or the true God? John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. What I found is real happiness comes from knowing and following God, myself is much happier after I truly started following God, without much change in environments.

The only reason truth is better than lie is that truth is more likely to result in good outcomes from choices. Like if we think we can fly, and we jump out a window and go splat on the ground, then that was a bad outcome.

In many ways the leader of North Korea is a god and should be worshiped. At least he exists and he can do things that affect people in a practical way.

 

[Silmarien]

I still don't see how you get from "the universe is intelligible" to "God is intellect". And why this same reasoning seems to be neglectable when it come to other attributes of our universe. Our universe is physical, so God is physics? Our universe is mostly vacuum, so God is emptiness?

Can you see why I say that the theists claim those ideas they like for their God, and ignore the rest?

Well, it really looks like you're simplifying the reasoning behind these sorts of statements so that everything turns into a semantical game. It's not like the argument from motion says that because motion exists, God is always in motion too. Quite the opposite, really!

If I remember Aquinas correctly--which I should, since I only just started studying him--God as intellect is something that gets established in the Fifth Way, and he is specifically looking at immanent teleology and the fact that things seem to be ordered towards specific purposes, something that we associate with reasoning beings. Therefore, there must be a force behind this which is also intellectual. Though that is a simplification too.

Close. And while I agree that it relies on "unknowns", I still think there is a certain reason behind it.
First, while there may be "infinite universes", they all would have to be "intelligible". Because that's what a universe is: a structure. Structures are intelligble. That's why I chose to call the ground, the "nature of reality" chaos.

This looks like backwards reasoning and word games to me. Let us define a universe as a structure, and then say that all universes must by definition be intelligible, thereby sidestepping the question of why this thing called "structure" exists at all.

Whether a reason is good enough to base a leap of faith on... that only you can decide.
For me seeing different people taking the same leap of faith and landing at a different spot is reason enough for me to be skeptical about it.

Skeptical about what, precisely? All that says to me is that we're grasping at concepts that are beyond our ability to conceptualize, which is something I'm quite convinced of anyway! But it also tells me that we're driven to grasp anyway, which I find pretty interesting as well.

Atheists often get accused of believing in nothing. Well, LO! Here I am.

Hahaha, well, these days I think atheists are more likely to be accused of mislabeling.

As long as you don't threaten anyone with eternal damnation for praying on the wrong day of the week, we will get along fine.

LOL! Low bar, you've got there!

Presumably. That is not what I was aiming at. I though especially a Christian theist would understand it.
The water would be the same without an distinguishing observer as with an observer.
But without the distinctions made by an observer, it is just water. Even more, it is just matter. Even more, it is just existence.

Well... to be fair, Trinitarian theology does not state that the distinctions between God in three Persons are made by the observer. That's actually Sabellianism, one of the more common heterodox approaches.

I am somewhat confused, though. Do you believe that science tells us something objectively true about the world, or do you see it as merely a reflection of the distinctions we make? There are certainly some scientific categories, like what does and doesn't count as the same species, that reflect our need to categorize instead of real divisions in the natural world, but going after chemistry seems more radical.