Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[datc]

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.

Dude, wtf do you want from me? I was asked to provide my own personal reasons for why I consider God to be a "he." Those reasons included a number of different observations, including the allegedly impermissible "cultural archetypes," human experience, and all that.

For example, man manipulates matter; he is a shaper of nature; he bends nature to his will. Nature is passive putty in human hands; potency; it can take many different forms. Human intelligence and labor are active; act; humans command and possess nature, put it on the rack and steal its secrets. So far so uncontroversial, right? Well, men possess women, as well, in a manner of speaking (e.g., not as property) in sex and marital communion. Hence, humans:nature::men:women. Hence, nature is a "she."

This is not a knockdown "argument"; it's an analogy, a fitting way to arrange your own personal world.

Don't like it? Then don't refer to God as a he, or don't refer to God at all. It's up to you.