To paraphrase Plato, you deduct reality from your observations of the shadows on a cave wall and then you argue or concur with people who are, similarly to you, just acquainted merely with the shadow show.

Despite having disastrous physical consequences (yes, the state of our current world is the result of human ignorance of the Absolute and rejection of even the animistic "naive" intuition of thereof), it's rather comical to observe this beef about whether this or that shadow shape dancing in front of you on the wall is a rabbit or giraffe or something else entirely.

I mean, it's sort of hilarious that your concept of God is essentially the same as that of the believers. But while the believer wants (or is duped into wanting) such God, you reject such idea. That's the whole difference. Yet, you and those believers you (rightly) criticize are equally ignorant.

It baffles me, why you don't try to go out of the cave (and beyond) and see the reality for yourself. I always thought that that was the goal of each philosopher -- to know the truth "firsthand", not just sitting and pondering, and then name dropping famous, though equally ignorant, people who support your point of view (with no evidence to boot). I really don't get how you can write about something (in this case God aka Absolute) without having a clue what you are actually talking about.

It reminds me of people arguing about bacteria without them bothering to look into a microscope. That's simply ridiculous. And that pertains to the believers equally as it applies to you.

When will you finally know yourself?