RE a definition: [Please remember, I don't believe in a god. But I think can speak on what you were asking, a little.]
The
"god" that most people I have spoken to, seem to be speaking about when
they discribe their often ill defined god concept, is obviously
similar to the god of the gaps.
But these people are "
Finding god in
what they know, not what they don't know", to paraphrase Dietrich
Bonhoeffer's famous objection to the god of the gaps. (Before I'm
accused of describing that god.)
They may well be wrong, but it is still not the same as the god of the gaps, it's the very opposite.
It is abductive reasoning.
"Stuff looks designed, a designer explains this best".
Most deists don't go beyond that. (The rest is "who knows")
Oh,
sure, an educated deist can wax lyrical about where they see design in
biology or whatever. But the argument is pretty much "Stuff looks
designed", however complex the phrasing gets.
And that is not stupid or steeped in fable.
One need only look at the fields of teleology and teleonomy.
Even the staunchest of materialist atheists in biology uses the terms "apparent design" and "apparent purpose" [or variations thereof].
It
is simply a matter of opinion as to if there is the appearance of
design because of a designer, or if the appearance is no more than an
illusion due to human psychology.
Apophenia? Maybe, damned if I know.
Hence my confusion when some deists are scorned and mocked alongside those with bloated theologies and reduced gods. Not everyone believes because of some desperate scrabble for hope - some people just think there is a "god/maker" of some kind and make no further claims, as they are not pretending to know anything about the "maker/god" they think they have abduced from looking at the things that seem "made" to them.
This is perfectly logical abductive reasoning. However bad people think
the conclusion it draws.
It's "inference to the best explanation", people just
differ on what that "best explanation" for "apparent design" is.
If it doesn't seem like a strong argument, that's because it doesn't try to be an argument at all. It is simply a statement of belief and it seems a shame to lump these people in with biblethumping fuqtards, simply because they are honest enough to express what they think.
Jmo.
[Btw, you seem like a theological noncognitivist. If so, it seems odd to ask people to define something you don't think can be defined. If you are not a theological noncognitivist, feel free to ignore that remark. It was simply an impression I got from your previous posts, I'm in no way pinning the tag on you.]
