[Udo]

> Sorry, yes, I meant nondenominational.

I know, and actually that's how I assumed/read it.

I think we both agree that nondenominational deities are not religious material (by definition). They have a certain appeal because they don't immediately contradict observation, but they're currently just as impossible to prove as, say, any of the Christian god variants. I'd argue it's a mistake to postulate non-religious gods but allow religious claims to take shelter in them, on account of some perceived common property.

It's true that making a "god" more generic increases the likelihood of existence, on a statistical level. But our scientific models do fine without any supernatural consideration at all right now. I would argue to keep it that way until we actually see supernatural agency at work. Until then there is not really a reason or need for it.

[croon]

You are probably right, but as someone who grew up episcopalian, and struggled a lot assembling a coherent world view, I do see (even if only psychological) the potential need for deity at the edges of the explained.

Someone might be able to explain the evolutionary benefits of existentialism, depression (or the benefits of the traits that when lacking lead to it, and how), philosophical meanderings when it would be more beneficial for me to work right now, and pre-bang existence, etc.

But even if not, I can't oppose your assertion that it serves no tangible purpose to award credit to some unnamed force. But it could at least be a comforting placeholder for when something more tangible comes along. Or a tea pot.