I don't think that it makes logical sense to expect the god-conceptions of the Abrahamic faiths to conform to human expectations of validation.
After all, where would the authority for such validation come from?
Far as I can tell, adoption of god-concepts is unavoidably a matter of personal affinity and efforts at showing those to be "true" are, at best, naive. If any true deities exist, it is not for humans to speak on behalf of their existence.
On the Abrahamics at least, that would be akin to expecting ants to give sworn testimonial on who is the true owner of a kitchen - somehow it just doesn't feel like an useful exercise.
It is perhaps conceivable that the God of Moses is the same of the Bible, and/or of the Qur'an. Or perhaps they are not. Any or all of them could not exist. They may or may not change with time, and have single or multiple aspects.
They may even have otherwise irreconciliable attributes, such as both not existing and definitely existing, or being both unchanging and ever adaptable. They are, after all, presumably well beyond human understanding and literal makers of miracles. Does it make sense that a keyring may be one and multiple at the same time, but a deity somehow can not?
Why would they even consider conforming to human expectations for consistency? Why would humans even be capable of understanding such aspects of its nature in any meaningful way? I don't think we would, even hypothetically. Even assuming that we could, how could that be in any way useful?
We all are probably far better off embracing the highly personal nature of those concepts and taking full advantage of what constructive inspiration they might present us. And, of course, accepting the personal responsibility that comes with that, for we can make sincere mistakes, god or no god.
After all, where would the authority for such validation come from?
Far as I can tell, adoption of god-concepts is unavoidably a matter of personal affinity and efforts at showing those to be "true" are, at best, naive. If any true deities exist, it is not for humans to speak on behalf of their existence.
On the Abrahamics at least, that would be akin to expecting ants to give sworn testimonial on who is the true owner of a kitchen - somehow it just doesn't feel like an useful exercise.
It is perhaps conceivable that the God of Moses is the same of the Bible, and/or of the Qur'an. Or perhaps they are not. Any or all of them could not exist. They may or may not change with time, and have single or multiple aspects.
They may even have otherwise irreconciliable attributes, such as both not existing and definitely existing, or being both unchanging and ever adaptable. They are, after all, presumably well beyond human understanding and literal makers of miracles. Does it make sense that a keyring may be one and multiple at the same time, but a deity somehow can not?
Why would they even consider conforming to human expectations for consistency? Why would humans even be capable of understanding such aspects of its nature in any meaningful way? I don't think we would, even hypothetically. Even assuming that we could, how could that be in any way useful?
We all are probably far better off embracing the highly personal nature of those concepts and taking full advantage of what constructive inspiration they might present us. And, of course, accepting the personal responsibility that comes with that, for we can make sincere mistakes, god or no god.