Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Mackay, for taking the time not only to read my story but to engage with its arguments so thoughtfully. I genuinely appreciate when a reader pushes back on the core premises, as it forces a valuable clarification of the work’s intent.

You have summarized the central thrust of your critique by asking why a god or gods would be bound by Christian beliefs, questioning what the requirements for godhood even are, and proposing that a universe-creator might be entirely unconcerned with humanity. You rightly point out that my story extensively discusses contradictions within a specific conception of God, and you seem to suggest this is a fatal flaw, as it fails to address every conceivable deity.

This is a fair point on its face, but it subtly misrepresents the story's target. The title, "A Logical Disproof of God? A Philosopher’s Case Against Theism," was chosen with precision. Theism, in the philosophical context this story engages, is not a vague belief in any possible supernatural force. It specifically refers to the belief in a god that is both transcendent and personally involved with creation—a maximally great being, as defined by classical theism, which encompasses the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The logical contradictions I explored, such as the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will or the coexistence of omnipotence and omnibenevolence with natural evil, are direct challenges to the coherence of that very specific, and widely held, concept of God.

Your suggestion that a deistic or impersonal creator god is immune to these arguments is correct, but it does not invalidate the case against theism. It simply moves the goalposts to a different playing field. A deistic god, by definition absent and unconcerned, is functionally indistinguishable from no god at all in terms of human experience, worship, or moral foundation. While such an entity may be logically possible, my story was not aimed at that minimal, and largely irrelevant, proposition. It was aimed at disproving the logical consistency of the active, providential God that billions of people actually believe in.

I would be very interested to hear you elaborate, if you are willing. If your conception of godhood is not bound by the requirements of classical theism—such as omnibenevolence, omniscience, or a concern for humanity—what positive attributes would you ascribe to this being that both justify the label "god" and make its existence a matter of meaningful consequence? A respectful discussion on that point could be very illuminating for us all.