The problem is that Delicate is actually arguing for two things couched in the same language:
1. That a god exists
2. That it's her(?) god
2 doesn't necessarily follow from 1, yet 1 is predicated on 2, namely that the creature in question just happens to have the characteristics of the god they believe in. Convenient, that.
I can imagine all sorts of creatures that could be powerful enough to create a universe, yet not be omniscient or omnipotent or any of the things they demand we take at their word that their god has. I see no reason to acquiesce to that particular demand in the arguments' premises.
1. That a god exists
2. That it's her(?) god
2 doesn't necessarily follow from 1, yet 1 is predicated on 2, namely that the creature in question just happens to have the characteristics of the god they believe in. Convenient, that.
I can imagine all sorts of creatures that could be powerful enough to create a universe, yet not be omniscient or omnipotent or any of the things they demand we take at their word that their god has. I see no reason to acquiesce to that particular demand in the arguments' premises.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
