Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Angrboda]

And for what it's worth, in the Hindu pantheon, the Shakti or divine feminine is the active principle. Like much else here you've simply coughed up your pre-existing beliefs as self-evident assertions. They aren't.

Well then, the Hindus made a mistake and got it wrong, didn't they?

Why? Because you say so?

Let's examine your reasons.

What makes you think "God" is a he?

The male / female duality is everywhere in our world.

Not true. It applies to sexually dimorphic life forms only. Amoeba have no male / female duality, nor does a rock. (And there's a lot more non-life matter in the universe than living matter.)

The masculine aspect tends to be interpreted as one with power to act, actuality; whereas the feminine aspect, as passive, one that is acted on, potency, potentiality.

That it tends to be interpreted as among certain cultures and for certain species does not support your generalization. There are species for whom it is true and species for whom the opposite is the case, and species that are neither. It's not a general rule of the world.

Nature is a "she";

Arbitrary assertion. Besides being purely arbitrary, since nature isn't a biological life form it has no sex.

... the female archetype is both receptive and destructive in its various guises: e.g., if you do not take the opportunity to plant your crops in the summer when nature is pliable, the same nature will starve and kill you in the winter.

The what? What do cultural archetypes have to do with nature?

But Nature's God is pure act with no admixture of potency in it. Hence is it appropriate to refer to God as "he."

How do you know this? This is simply another unfounded assertion.

On top of everything else, you keep arguing as if we can reason backward from the way the world is to the way the divine must be, as if some law of consistency between the two applied. It makes just as much sense to argue the reverse is true of the divine realm, that it is wholly other, than that it is the same. The only precedent for arguing such a law of consistency is based on the consistency of the natural world and assuming the divine must resemble it, but that is begging the question.

You have no more valid reason for positing the divine as the masculine of a sexual duality than you do for positing the feminine.

Remember, "He" is beyond all that exists in this world, including sexual dimorphism.