The important underlying argument:
Reality is rational and repeats itself consistently. Drop a ball, it always falls.
We have logical systems to describe this reality. Sometimes, they are inexact; other times, people misunderstand them to be linear.
Categorical logic is one example. Idiots make it absolute and universal; "he can't be a fireman, he's a policeman!!!1!" when the guy is working nights as a fireman.
The "excluded middles" problem is part of this. Is he a fireman, not a fireman, or another category? Well... categories either work in AND conditions or OR conditions. I prefer the AND conditions, don't you? He's a fireman who also has a nine-inch penis; he's not either a man with a nine-inch penis OR a fireman.
In the same way we can approach God. Most of us on this site despise the anthropomorphic God because (a) it makes zero fucking sense, and reveals a clear anthropocentric bias and (b) it justifies morality of the human form, e.g. every life is sacred. But that doesn't mean we have only a binary option, believes-in-anthropomorphic-God or doesn't-believe-in-anthropomorphic-God.
Life is bountiful and offers other options.
Whose underlying argument is that?
Your example of the ball reminds me of David Hume. Ever read him? He's an awful read, but a good example of the systematic, limiting viewpoint of empiricism. What he doesn't understand, or what does not fit into his empirical view is molded until it fits. Negative side effect is that his whole system is incoherent and doesn't stand up in the least to traditional doctrines. You'll notice that when you compare his notion of necissity to the idea presented by traditional texts. He confused necessity and causality and misnamed the latter to appear as the former. But why? Because he thought just like you that the "natural law" was the only rule, and that all reality was under its sway.
I often wonder, did all those modern philosophers not read the classics? How could one possibly confuse necessity and causality after having read Augustine's de libero arbitrio
? Or confuse contingency and accident after having read Aristotle's Physics?
You prefer AND conditions; but you are the one impressing your OR on reality. Here's the AND condition: there is the universal and
Nobody forces you to approach God like the crowd does. Nobody forces you to like the latest Metallica, either. But METAL you do like, don't you?
You want to tell me that God is not represented by the TV preacher, by sentimentalistic "religiousness"? Thanks, but I already know that. That's not reason enough for atheism, though; or do you hate Burzum because Metallica sucks?