You are approaching an important point: distinguishing the levels of meaning of the word “God.” Without this, a conversation almost always becomes an argument in which people talk past one another.
1) The Word “God” Has No Single Meaning
This is not a term with a fixed definition, but a nexus of historically formed layers:
1.1 God as a Person
- will
- intention
- “wants,” “punishes,” “loves”
- can “intervene”
An anthropomorphic model.
1.2 God as the Ground of Being
- the source of existence
- not “who,” but “what lies at the foundation”
- closer to philosophy (Plato, Neoplatonism, Spinoza)
1.3 God as a Field of Meaning / the Absolute
- not an object
- not a character
- but a medium of meaning within which everything arises
1.4 God as a Cultural Construct
- a social function
- regulation of behavior
- an institution
A Typical Error in Disputes
One person is talking about a personal God (1.1), another criticizes a cultural construct (1.4), a third defends the ground of being (1.2), and everyone thinks they are talking about the same thing.
2) On the Thesis “God as a Person Is a Caricature”
2.1 What Is Important to Clarify
A personal God is not an invention of atheists, but a real historical layer of religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism):
- has a will
- makes decisions
- enters into relationships
2.2 Where the Caricature Actually Appears
Often, an extremely simplified version of a personal God (“an old man on a cloud”) is criticized, and then the conclusion is extended to the entire concept of God.
This is the pattern: reduction → attack on the reduction.
3) The Mechanism of Substitution
- A complex tradition is taken.
- It is collapsed into a primitive model.
- Criticism is directed at that model.
- A conclusion is drawn about the entire system.
Form substitutes for meaning.
4) A More Precise Formulation of the Position
A personal God in a primitive anthropomorphic form is often used as a convenient model for criticism, but this model neither exhausts nor describes the entire spectrum of understandings of God.
Even more forcefully:
What is being criticized is not God as a concept, but a simplified version of one of its interpretive layers.
5) How to Strengthen the Argument
Weak formulation:
- “It is an invention of atheists” (easily refuted by referring to religious texts).
Strong formulation:
- “Atheism often operates with a reduced model of God.”
6) Connection to Your Ontology
- the personal God is a form that fixes meaning;
- the philosophical God is an attempt to reach the very field of meaning;
- the atheistic caricature is the destruction of a form without reaching the meaning.
Conclusion
The problem is not that “God as a person is an invention,” but that one simplified form substitutes for the entire field of meanings and is then criticized as though it were the whole thing.
