“God”, or merely “some intelligence”?
Author@ptbooks has been defending a form of creationism, and also arguing for the existence of God.
I pointed out that the arguments for authors specific God are weak, and that the problem of evil provides seemingly overwhelming evidence against the existence of any such being.
Author’s response has been to say that that are “too busy” to discuss the issue of whether God is good or not, and that they are merely defending belief in God, not his goodness.
But this seems highly evasive to me. Surely it is now misleading for author to continue to use the term “God” here, as, for most people, “God” means something far more specific – a personal God who is supremely benevolent and powerful, among other things.
Indeed, author’s arguments from design really only support, at best, the hypothesis that there is some intelligence behind the universe. This intelligence may not even be divine (for example, perhaps this universe is the virtual, Matrix-like creation of a perfectly natural intelligence). Nor need it be unitary (perhaps its the work of a team).
So, unless author is prepared to defend the view that the intelligence is supernatural, unitary, and indeed bears at least some connection with the God of the Old Testament, etc., shouldn’t they drop the otherwise highly misleading “God” and just talk about “some intelligence”?
Otherwise it looks like author is guilty of humpty-dumptying (making words mean whatever you want them to mean).
In any case, we can now do this: I have provided, I believe, overwhelming evidence that if the universe has a designer, it is not the all-good God of traditional monotheism – the one believed in by author@ptgbooks.
Moreover, author has, by his own admission, provided no evidence in support of that specific God-hypothesis.
So, let’s now consider other possible design-hypotheses, but, until author deals with the evidence now provided, let’s be clear that whatever the designer, if any, is – it isn’t his particular God.