> First we should define what God(s) is/are. It's a good turn because it's the quickest path toward dealing with apophatic/cataphatic problem. For the uniniti

> First we should define what God(s) is/are. It's a good turn because it's the quickest path toward dealing with apophatic/cataphatic problem. For the uninitiated, cataphatic definitions of God involve saying "God is..." and attaching positive claims to God. You can see this assumption in the article's quote > Now we believe that [God is] something than which nothing greater can be thought… The use of "greater" should key you in that we're using cataphatic theology. The issue is that when you start to add these positive claims, they start to conflict. God is the reddest and the bluest and the heaviest or the lightest and becomes a big ball of mud. Apophatic definitions of God try to solve this, but using negetive attributes eg: God is not evil, God is ineffable, &c. The issue with that is that all you sort of have left is that "God is." Which isn't much at all. The sort of third way out of this are various forms of pantheism which you've identified, but ultimately aren't very satisfying to adherents to world religions for reasons that are outside of the topic of this discussion. Personally if someone wants to ontologically argue for the conclusion that God is reality, or God is the universe, more power to them. It's a perfectly logical conclusion, and while beautiful in its own way, eschews conventionally theological normativity in ways that again, I don't think are palatable to adherents of world religions. Note: they are rather palatable to cannabis users however :)