What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Esquilax]

Right. It doesn't have anything to do with any of them. It's an equivocation. No religious theists actually worships this bland version of God. Not that I've heard of anyway.

I've never encountered anyone who hung their hat on such a bland god-concept either. I suppose the real utility of this argument for the believer is it gives them a philosophical Trojan horse they can sneak in before unleashing their arbitrary claim that it's really Yahweh, after all.

Like ninety percent of classic theistic arguments are this way, the rest is biblical prophecy fluff. At this point I'm close to just calling it a form of divinity-themed Tourette's and leaving it at that, because I refuse to believe that people smart enough to string a sentence together can truly think that describing a vague, deistic sounding cause, and then blurting out that it also must be the christian god, counts as a cogent argument.