Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?

Hi Spiritual Anarchist,

As of yet, you've heard entirely from critics of ID. I'm (one of the few) intelligent design proponents around here, so let me offer my thoughts.

Firstly, you state that:

Design implies a total lack of creativity and to me is just as cold as Richard Dawkins summary of natural selection...

I'm not sure why "design" implies a total lack of creativity to you. Design - that is, the intentional execution of a plan - can certainly be creative. I'm a bit confused, then, by your statement that design implies a lack of creativity.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

That really depends on the individuals within the ID movement. I'm not a part of the ID movement, though, and the ID movement as characterized by the Discovery Institute certainly has a religious and political agenda. But there are some ID proponents out there, like myself, who are not affiliated with the movement. Instead, we think that the whole culture war between Christians and atheists is pretty silly - or more specifically, irrelevant to the question of design in biology.

So, is the general idea of design in biology open to pantheism? Yes, it is. In fact, it's open to a whole range of viewpoints. You'd have a pretty difficult time testing the idea of a pantheistic designer, but ID as a whole is open to the idea.

I think ringo succinctly summarized this situation in his message 10:

There are some people (including one or two members of EvC) who propose that the idea of Intelligent Design can be approached scientifically. But scientific inquiry is the last thing that the Intelligent Design movement wants. The Intelligent Design movement is not open to anything but its own dogma.

You also said:

From what I am reading there is little hope for ID as a Science.

If I understand this correctly, you're basically saying there is little hope for developing a scientific approach to detecting intelligent design in the biological world. Yet ID hypotheses have been outlined in the past (e.g., Mike Gene's front-loading hypothesis), and there is really nothing stopping ID from developing into a more rigorous scientific hypothesis.

It should be noted that the idea that parts of biology were intelligently design need not, in any way, be a religious idea. Indeed, a few publications in the scientific literature have theorized that an advanced society has designed parts of the biological world. Some have conjectured that certain viral genomes contain messages from an advanced civilization (Is bacteriophage phi X174 DNA a message from an extraterrestrial intelligence, 1979; SV40 DNA—A message from ϵ Eri?, 1986), though there is little supporting evidence for these views. Davies (Footprints of alien technology, 2012) speculated that aliens may have manipulated terrestrial genomes for biotechnology purposes and suggested that evidence for this tampering might exist to this day. So we see that the notion of design in biology only becomes religious when its proponents make it that way.

According to scientific reasoning what you can not accurately measure doesn't exist.

We are unable to accurately measure pretty much everything; we are only able to arrive at approximations.

As of yet, you've heard entirely from critics of ID. I'm (one of the few) intelligent design proponents around here, so let me offer my thoughts. Firstly, you state that: Design implies a total lack of creativity and to me is just as cold as Richard Dawkins summary of natural selection... I'm not sure why "design" implies a total lack of creativity to you. Design - that is, the intentional execution of a plan - can certainly be creative. I'm a bit confused, then, by your statement that design implies a lack of creativity.

I think I make clear why I personally think ID is impersonal and non creative. It is because I do not think of God as a person.To me God is the Universe and is therefore Transpersonal.

To me the personal God of Theology is an impersonal God when you break down their Metaphysics. And the idea of a person designing my Universe with a set goal in mind is cold. How cold is it to touch a domino knocking all the other dominoes down in a preset pattern that pleases me? So maybe I mean Egoistical. It's weird. They make their God so human like but their Theological explanations of God and his purpose is so impersonal based on the Mechanical Universe they believed was designed like a watch.

Obedience was the purpose. And behavior modification was the solution. Heaven was a concept for positive reinforcement and Hell for negative reinforcement.When you mix ID with the Christian Bible you have to accept Theology that says we are just toys for God to play with.

So if this is what you mean by playful or creative...`I always thought that about the Garden of Eden story,'' said Ford.

``Eh?''

``Garden of Eden. Tree. Apple. That bit, remember?''

``Yes of course I do.''

``Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting `Gotcha'. It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it.''

``Why not?''

``Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.''

Douglas Adams

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity? That really depends on the individuals within the ID movement. I'm not a part of the ID movement, though, and the ID movement as characterized by the Discovery Institute certainly has a religious and political agenda. But there are some ID proponents out there, like myself, who are not affiliated with the movement. Instead, we think that the whole culture war between Christians and atheists is pretty silly - or more specifically, irrelevant to the question of design in biology.

But is it irrelevant? Creativity is a process that never ends. Doesn't most form of ID propose the Christian God as the designer. Most of the debate I have watched with Craig and Plantinga etc are trying to justify Theology. I guess I find theology cold and dead. And I can not see science based on the theological concepts of God.

So, is the general idea of design in biology open to pantheism? Yes, it is. In fact, it's open to a whole range of viewpoints. You'd have a pretty difficult time testing the idea of a pantheistic designer, but ID as a whole is open to the idea.

Well I think that should be a separate movement because the Atheist and ID proponents here alike agree that ID is a movement of Creationist.

I think ringo succinctly summarized this situation in his message 10: There are some people (including one or two members of EvC) who propose that the idea of Intelligent Design can be approached scientifically. But scientific inquiry is the last thing that the Intelligent Design movement wants. The Intelligent Design movement is not open to anything but its own dogma.

And you are making my point for me

You also said: From what I am reading there is little hope for ID as a Science. If I understand this correctly, you're basically saying there is little hope for developing a scientific approach to detecting intelligent design in the biological world. Yet ID hypotheses have been outlined in the past (e.g., Mike Gene's front-loading hypothesis), and there is really nothing stopping ID from developing into a more rigorous scientific hypothesis.

I think that you can detect intelligence in nature and in the Universe itself but again I have a problem with the word design. I think the word Design is used in ID because theology demands a "purpose" behind the Universe. Artist do not have a "purpose" except to create. At least that should be the true artists passion. If the Universe has a "purpose" and worse yet that "purpose" just happens to be the spread of Christian Theological Principles then I am predetermined creature meant for obedience so I can get a reward at the end. Ugggh

It should be noted that the idea that parts of biology were intelligently design need not, in any way, be a religious idea. Indeed, a few publications in the scientific literature have theorized that an advanced society has designed parts of the biological world. Some have conjectured that certain viral genomes contain messages from an advanced civilization (Is bacteriophage phi X174 DNA a message from an extraterrestrial intelligence, 1979; SV40 DNA—A message from ϵ Eri?, 1986), though there is little supporting evidence for these views. Davies (Footprints of alien technology, 2012) speculated that aliens may have manipulated terrestrial genomes for biotechnology purposes and suggested that evidence for this tampering might exist to this day. So we see that the notion of design in biology only becomes religious when its proponents make it that way.

This is my point if the Aliens simply wanted to make our biology more advanced so we could one day form cultures of our own choosing then I am not as offended. But if the Aliens had a "purpose" behind this such as farming us for food or practicing slavery techniques like market advertisers do when doing market research again ugggh

According to scientific reasoning what you can not accurately measure what doesn't exist. We are unable to accurately measure pretty much everything; we are only able to arrive at approximations.

That wasn't really my point about measurement. If you read the Uncertainty Principle certain measurements are not possible. Not even approximation. I am claiming that is because our Universe isn't "Designed" and so is not Deterministic. It is Consciousness that observes and therefore creates reality that provides the Indeterminism in QM. We have met God and he is Us. God is the Universe. So God did not have to "Design" the Universe. The Universe being self aware wanted (Maybe wanted is not the right word) to have a deeper experience. That deeper experience is sentient Beings. How this is possible is not known. Yet we are living proof that matter can achieve consciousness.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarify a point

Intelligent Design, Atheism and beyond I don't think Intelligent Design is a very open movement. But I think that what you consider as an alternative (what you think of as "atheism") doesn't exist. So maybe it's okay that Intelligent Design isn't very open, because the alternative is much better anyway.

Not sure what you mean by that. I have heard of an "Atheist" meaning lack of belief in God but an atheist of atheism? You do not believe Atheist exist? Are you an
A-Atheist?

OR are you saying that I do not have a proper view of real Atheist. I was 100% Atheist up until I was 30. Ok 99% but I thought I was 100%. The problem is that the logical conclusion of Atheism if you take it all the way as far as you can go as truth is Nihilism.

I was 100% happy with Atheism but I couldn't escape Nihilism without giving up at least 10% of my Atheism. Believe me I tried!

Anyway I'm not convinced the alternative is better as you say because Atheism sees itself as the alternative to Christianity or Theism in general. To me anything is better than Christianity or Theism in general!

Except Nihilism which is where most forms of Atheism ultimately lead.

Of course most forms of Theism also lead to a form of Nihilism they just take longer to get there taking the scenic route through other forms of Nihilism like Moral Nihilism for instance. Yes I know ironic but a moralist is an absolutist and Absolutism of any kind is a direct path to Nihilism. They actually think of this as objective morality. Double ugggh.

Spiritual Anarchist writes:

I do not believe we live in a cold Godless Universe.

Me neither.

I was almost relieved until you said you lived in a warm Godless Universe. *L* Who provides the warmth? Other human beings? Im ok with that. I just wont leave it at that. How can a cold Universe produce warm beings? How can matter be conscious or aware. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I see Pantheism as a possible solution but Materialism is a dead end even if I am wrong.

But I have concluded instead that the Universe is alive and as more awareness manifest the Universe becomes more creative.

I see. I simply concluded that we live in a warm Godless Universe.

See my prior point.

The suffering in this process is attributed to the fact that to eliminate suffering that the Universe must become self reflective and aware of itself through us and other sentient beings.

I do not think what you claim to be a fact is actually a fact.

Maybe not a proven fact. But that doesn't mean it can not be true. Science seeks proof through observation and I am stating what I have observed when practicing mindfulness.

In order to eliminate suffering, we simply need to deal with how sentient beings treat other sentient beings. The Universe itself does not need to become self reflective. Which is good, 'cause that might not even be possible.

I guess I half agree with you and you half agree with me by your wording. The question is how do we deal with how sentient beings treat eachother? When I become aware of your suffering the Universe IS becoming self aware. That is non-locality of QM is being activated. My consciousness is affected by your consciousness and matter is not directly involved. I guess what I am getting at is that it might actually be possible. And I have actually observed it happening.

Is the Intelligent Design Movement open to Pantheism or other view points beside Christianity?

I think it should be, but no... I don't think that it is. Probably because it was invented by Christianity in order to promote Christianity.

Yeah I figured that. Maybe I will start that movement I joked about earlier.

I feel like I must choose a false Dichotomy in this debate between a meaningless Universe with no room for souls,freewill etc
or belief in some Tribal Deity of the Canaanites.

That is indeed a false dichotomy. You can have a very meaningful universe, with all that was ever available to "souls", freewill etc... and just not have a God in it. It looks very much like the universe we live in right now, even.

I agree completely. I do have freewill and soul.So that is the Universe we live in now... Wait a second you want to postulate freewill without a soul?

I can't get there with you. If I am just a process of my brain then I have to agree with Dennett that Freewill is just a convenient illusion.

As for God I just see God as the singularity when all souls are one and the Universe vanishes. Boom we are God then we create another Universe and a couple of billion years later we might be having this same conversation.

I just want to thank everyone here. This is the best philosophy conversation I have had hands down. Not just on the internet but period. I did not mention in the beginning that I was doing research for a book I am writing because I did not want anyone to think I was here to sell something rather than have a real discussion.

This discussion has given me real insight into ID beyond the debate on Youtube where Atheist and Creationist just try to tear eachother apart and further their agendas.

Yes I do believe that some of the major player Atheist have an Agenda.

Just as Creationist have the Discovery Institute and the Wedge document there are Science organizations that claim that this is only about Evolution and yet when you visit their website it is all about Global Warming "Deniers"

I see this as no different from the ploy of Creationist to "Teach The Controversy".

There are people that stand to make a lot of money through spreading fear of the "Environmental Apocalypse as there are people that make money of our fear of a "Biblical Apocalypse".

I do not think there is an Atheist Conspiracy if you will but money does change hands and I will expose false movements for what they are. For those who are interested in my book I promise to keep all the conspiracy crap out of it. Although I will have to mention The Discovery Institute I don't have anything but journalist intuition about "The New Atheist" movement.

My book is about Philosophy and does not use Journalism as a tool. Unless you count basic research.

Anyway my interest in this subject is genuine and if anyone wants to discuss this topic further without any reference to the book I am writing I will be happy to add comments to this board in reply to this topic or answer questions in messages. To be clear I am only revealing this to be honest with you about my motives for engaging in this topic. Not trying to sell anything.

I am going to post my link on Authors Den because I am not selling any books on that site. So I will not get inquiries here about my book. Because if I answer inquiries here it might seem I am trying to promote my book. If I ever do finish my book however I will make sure people will be able to find a link on Authors Den.

I really needed to see if ID proponents or Atheist would read anything besides The Dawkins view or Behe . I have been more than pleasantly surprised.

If I was not researching I STILL would have enjoyed every minute of discussion and I still would have posted exactly what I did post. I also needed to see that there were real philosophers out there that had other views beyond pure atheism or Creationism/ID.

I hope no one here is mad at me. I am completely sincere in all that I said both in this post and in all my other post.

http://www.authorsden.com/briangordon

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : typos

I just want to throw in one more irony. Everyone I have ever met consider me an Atheist ... except Atheist. and to add salt to my wounds The World Pantheist which has almost all the Pantheist as members are is made up of mostly Atheist. .. just saying... I have been an Atheist all my life but because I now believe I have a soul ... Never mind... I just thought it was funny

Here is a post from my Blog you might find interesting. I first posted it on an Atheist message board where I asked not believing God should mean I have to give up my soul as well. They assumed because I did believe I had a soul that I must believe in God or Xtianity. Talk about a mess.

http://philosophicalagain.blogspot.com/...ul-of-atheist.html

I think I make clear why I personally think ID is impersonal and non creative. It is because I do not think of God as a person.To me God is the Universe and is therefore Transpersonal.

But intelligent design as an idea in biology has precious little to do with deities. So, I ask you again: how is the idea that the first cells were engineered "non-creative" and "impersonal"?

To me the personal God of Theology is an impersonal God when you break down their Metaphysics. And the idea of a person designing my Universe with a set goal in mind is cold. How cold is it to touch a domino knocking all the other dominoes down in a preset pattern that pleases me? So maybe I mean Egoistical. It's weird. They make their God so human like but their Theological explanations of God and his purpose is so impersonal based on the Mechanical Universe they believed was designed like a watch.

I think there's something that needs to be clarified here. When you say "ID," it appears to me that you are referring to the notion of cosmological intelligent design. However, what I mean by ID is the idea of biological intelligent design. These two views need to be separated. The thesis of cosmological intelligent design has little to do with science, and lies more in the realm of philosophy.

But is it irrelevant? Creativity is a process that never ends. Doesn't most form of ID propose the Christian God as the designer. Most of the debate I have watched with Craig and Plantinga etc are trying to justify Theology. I guess I find theology cold and dead. And I can not see science based on the theological concepts of God.

Most forms of ID do not propose the Christin God as the designer. Remember not to confuse the private ideas of the proponents of an idea with the actual idea. Sure, Behe and Dembski might think that the Christian God was the designer of life, but that doesn't mean that ID as a whole proposes that the Christian God was the designer.

Let us consider an example to illustrate this point. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. His theory required hereditary variation and natural selection. His own idea of the mechanism of heredity was pangenesis. Yet pangenesis was later shown to be an incorrect explanation for the mechanism of heredity, and it was refuted by experimentation. Does this mean that Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory was also refuted? Not at all. Darwin's evolutionary theory did not depend on pangenesis to be true, even if that was Darwin's favored idea on how heredity occurs. Likewise, ID does not in any way depend on the Christian God as the designer, even if many ID proponents personally believe that the Christian God was the designer.

Well I think that should be a separate movement because the Atheist and ID proponents here alike agree that ID is a movement of Creationist.

The idea of ID is not creationism. Some people have taken the idea and fashioned a movement out of it - a movement that has a religious agenda. But the idea need not be creationism.

I think that you can detect intelligence in nature and in the Universe itself but again I have a problem with the word design.

Then substitute the word "design" and replace it with "engineer." Are there signatures of engineering in biological cells? This is the key question behind ID.

This is my point if the Aliens simply wanted to make our biology more advanced so we could one day form cultures of our own choosing then I am not as offended. But if the Aliens had a "purpose" behind this such as farming us for food or practicing slavery techniques like market advertisers do when doing market research again ugggh

I just thought I would point out that the scientific understanding of reality, quite honestly, doesn't care about people's squeamishness. Using words like "I am not as offended" and "ugggh" reveal a bias you have - a bias that is not justified except on an emotional level.

Spiritual Anarchist writes: And the ID proponents description of "Guidance" has nothing to do with seeing intelligence in nature or design. Design and Guidance are 2 different things anyway.

Maybe you could clarify what you see as the difference between design and guidance. I often remind IDists that designers (and/or guides) can only work with existing natural processes. As far as I can see, they both have at least that one constraint in common.

Maybe "Intelligent Design" is just not the right terminology for what you envision. (Intelligence doesn't seem to be an appropriate trait for a transpersonal pan-god, does it?)

I think there's something that needs to be clarified here. When you say "ID," it appears to me that you are referring to the notion of cosmological intelligent design. However, what I mean by ID is the idea of biological intelligent design. These two views need to be separated. The thesis of cosmological intelligent design has little to do with science, and lies more in the realm of philosophy.

Christian Creationism evolved into ID because of the Dover Trial. If you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationism, then stop using the ID moniker.

Christian Creationism evolved into ID because of the Dover Trial. If you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationism, then stop using the ID moniker.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Dover trial. That aside, "intelligent design" (more specifically, biological intelligent design) refers to the general idea that features of the biological world were intelligently designed. One can be a proponent of that general idea without being part of the movement.

Christian Creationism evolved into ID because of the Dover Trial. If you don't want to be associated with Christian Creationism, then stop using the ID moniker.

I believe it was the Edwards v. Aguillard case heard by the US Supreme Court (1987).

If anyone does something in a post, and you wonder how they formatted it, you can use the "Peek" button in the bottom right of any post while viewing a thread. This will let you see what they typed in order to produce the formatting.

You can do that to see how I make embedded-quotes like this:

Spiritual Anarchist writes: Stile writes: Intelligent Design, Atheism and beyond I don't think Intelligent Design is a very open movement. But I think that what you consider as an alternative (what you think of as "atheism") doesn't exist. So maybe it's okay that Intelligent Design isn't very open, because the alternative is much better anyway. Not sure what you mean by that. I have heard of an "Atheist" meaning lack of belief in God but an atheist of atheism? You do not believe Atheist exist? Are you an A-Atheist? OR are you saying that I do not have a proper view of real Atheist. I was 100% Atheist up until I was 30. Ok 99% but I thought I was 100%. The problem is that the logical conclusion of Atheism if you take it all the way as far as you can go as truth is Nihilism.

I'm just saying that "Atheism" is simply a lack of belief in God.
There is no such thing as "the logical conclusion of Atheism if you take it all the way is Nihilism"... there is no "logical conclusion of Atheism" at all... other than "you do not believe in God."

Spiritual Anarchist writes: I was 100% happy with Atheism but I couldn't escape Nihilism without giving up at least 10% of my Atheism. Believe me I tried!

Lots of people call me an Atheist. I'm certainly not consumed by Nihilism.
Further answering questions along this line may take away from the purpose you have for this thread? I'm not sure.
If you would like to discuss any specific problems you have with Atheism, feel free to post any concerns to here:

Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)

If you reply to one of my posts, I'll get an email notification and see it. Or you can talk to anyone else there.

I was almost relieved until you said you lived in a warm Godless Universe. *L* Who provides the warmth?

I don't know. It may not even be a "whom," maybe just the way things are. Like asking "who provides the gravity?"
I have never heard of anything described by a Christian or Deist or Theist or anyone that is "higher" or "warmer" or "better" in any way then the things I can obtain being an Atheist.

Again, I might be getting off-topic for what you want to talk about in this thread. If you're interested in letting me know of some feeling or pleasure or "betterness" you think is available to Theists that is not available to Atheists... feel free to post to this thread:

What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?

How can a cold Universe produce warm beings? How can matter be conscious or aware. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. I see Pantheism as a possible solution but Materialism is a dead end even if I am wrong.

What do you mean by "cold Universe" or "warm Universe"?
If you mean temperature... obviously there are some hot things in the Universe.
If you mean feelings of warmth or coldness. Then, yes, they are produced by people. Who else would ever produce them? Who else would ever feel them? What is the difference between "God warmth" vs. "Human warmth"? Can you show me one? That's what the above thread is about... no one is ever able to actually show a difference. Without a difference you can show, then it doesn't exist... it's just in your imagination. If you simply imagine the universe to be cold if a God isn't there... well, I simply imagine the universe to be warm if a God isn't there.

If you mean something more concrete, then you need to show it.

The question is how do we deal with how sentient beings treat each other?

That's exactly what morality is.
Try this thread, if you'd like to know about Atheist's morality without God:

Morality without god

When I become aware of your suffering the Universe IS becoming self aware. That is non-locality of QM is being activated. My consciousness is affected by your consciousness and matter is not directly involved. I guess what I am getting at is that it might actually be possible. And I have actually observed it happening.

I can believe that you have actually observed two people's consciousness' interacting. Happens all the time. Happens in the thousands and even millions all the time too.
But what about that turns into the universe becoming self-aware? Where is that connection? Have you actually observed the universe becoming self-aware? What would that even look like?

I can't get there with you. If I am just a process of my brain then I have to agree with Dennett that Freewill is just a convenient illusion.

Okay, then I do not agree with Dennett.
If we're going to get more into this, though, we'll have to define "freewill" so that we're talking about the same thing.
Do you think the opposite of freewill is a "deterministic" universe? A universe that is not deterministic, then.. would contain some element of randomness?

If you think "randomness" is required for freewill... wouldn't that mean that all your decisions are non-deterministic... they are "random"? Does that mean it's simply random when you choose to be friends with someone? Is it random when you choose this mortgage over that one? Is it random to decide to save a child in distress? Determinism can be a good thing. Determinism (even if it did completely exist... which is not for sure anyway...) does not equal "no freewill." We need to understand what freewill actually is (a strict definition) before we can discuss whether or not we have it.

(The problem may be that we cannot actually define "freewill" in any coherent way...)

Here's another thread more focused on free will, if you'd like:

Free will but how free really?

I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Dover trial.

Derp!

That aside, "intelligent design" (more specifically, biological intelligent design) refers to the general idea that features of the biological world were intelligently designed.

I've never seen "biological intelligent design" papers.

One can be a proponent of that general idea without being part of the movement.

No doubt. The point was that people rightly associate ID with Christian Creationism and if you don't want to be seen as a part of the movement, then don't use the "ID" moniker.

I've never seen "biological intelligent design" papers.

That's beside the point, but what's your definition of a "biological intelligent design" paper?

No doubt. The point was that people rightly associate ID with Christian Creationism and if you don't want to be seen as a part of the movement, then don't use the "ID" moniker.

They rightly associate the ID movement with Christian creationism. The phrase "intelligent design" is generally thought of as the general idea that parts of biology were designed, so I fall within that camp. The reason I use the ID moniker is because it's a phrase that accurately describes my general position.

That's beside the point, but what's your definition of a "biological intelligent design" paper?

A biologist publishing a paper on intelligent design in biology.

They rightly associate the ID movement with Christian creationism. The phrase "intelligent design" is generally thought of as the general idea that parts of biology were designed, so I fall within that camp.

What I'm trying to tell you is that the phrase "intelligent design" is generally thought of as the obfuscation that Christian Creationists invented after that court case ruled they couldn't teach creationism in the classroom.

The reason I use the ID moniker is because it's a phrase that accurately describes my general position.

But you've changed it from what it originally was. People aren't just going forget about that creationist fiasco. And you're going to continue to be associated with them.

Spiritual Anarchist writes: If Pantheism is true as I believe it is then I am not sure what sort of science could prove this level of reality.

Nature is natural. It is tautology. One can lable nature as god.
But what is it? A distinction without a difference?

God is the sun.
The sun is a spherical gaseous/plasma thermonuclear reactor.

Which of these two best describes what the sun is?