How is a personal god different from an anthropomorphic god?

[Mudhammam]

How would one be justified in the precision by which they draw a line between the anthropomorphism that Xenophanes mocked in the tales of the Homeric gods and that which the Muslims abhor in the tales of the Incarnated God of Christianity or that one may find objectionable in its incipient temple cult of the Israelites? Of course, "not all anthropomorphism is bad," but the point of the OP, I think, is that it is always unjustified when one is relating a metaphysical entity said to include the concept of infinity, of which ratiocination does not extend to such particulars as deities possessing analogous human characteristics, and the same suspicion that occasions egocentric or anthropocentric thought in other cases is most applicable here as well.

How would you show that it is always unjustified? How would you demonstrate that your position is credible?

Of course, I cannot assert that it is a priori impossible for deities with qualities analogous to human beings to exist, any more than I can absolutely rule out the possibility that a god with hooves or horns might exist too. Since certain knowledge is not attainable on this topic, I can only speak in terms of probabilities. First, I would consider the internal consistency in conceptualizing such a being, and the basis upon which we grant it the title of deity, then the arguments pro and con for the existence of such a being. If it seems more probable than not that a deity as such exists, then my position is for the time discredited. As I don't find that this burden can be overcome in the case of a deistic god, by default it eliminates one with attributes that are akin to man. One issue that plays a large role in the 'con' category is the long history of discarded ideas that unjustly bestowed upon objects anthropocentric and/or anthropomorphic characteristics, a few examples being: that the stars and planets possess intellects and move themselves; that the earth is the center of the universe; that human beings were specially created, as an act of god in their own right, apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Beyond the endless intellectual debates in which we were led astray by this kind of thinking, there is also the egocentric tendency possessed by nearly all individuals to place themselves as an objective center of gravity in the world, if you will, an observation one can make in almost every interview with a survivor of some catastrophic event. That this penchant for projecting one's self on to the universe is so common, and commonly erroneous, gives me, I think, just cause to be on guard against so natural a bias.