How is a personal god different from an anthropomorphic god?

[Delicate]

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.

False attributions of agency do indeed exist, I'll give you that.

But false attributions of agency happen in a certain way. They are assumed based on insufficient actual proof of personhood. Unjustified leaps, so to speak.

That's what happens when people attribute personhood or agency to nature in various ways (stars etc).

But this doesn't seem to be how it happened in Christianity. It didn't have such a process, if you look at its origins.

So how can you lump them together like this? I'd say, based on their difference, they are in different categories.

This is so far as anthropomorphism.

So far as anthropocentrisms, I wonder what you make of the non-anthropocentric data in Christianity: We obey God's commands, not ours. God is worshipped not humans. God dictates morality not humans.

This doesn't fit with the anthropocentrism thesis, right?