The True Trinity of Religious Discourse

God is mostly subjective.

"The True Trinity of Religious Discourse" is what people mean when they say "God" as if it's one thing when it's actually more like three different things.

Religious apologists like to swap out their God or the God of the Bible out for the God discussed in philosophy as if they're automatically the same and as if any secular and non-Biblical arguments for God could be simultaneously arguments for their God or the God of the Bible.

Philosophers do their own heavy lifting, and it's not done so that the religious person doesn't have to make their own arguments, so that they coattail on the work of philosophers, or so that they can build on the philosopher's foundations. The divide between potential existence of God and the God of religion, who reveals himself in specific ways to specific people, is infinite.

The philosophical arguments have parameters that the religious arguments do not abide by, and so the general philosophical existence of God is irrelevant to the question of whether a specific God is real or not. The religious person must prove that their specific and defined God is real, not that "a" God could be real, that's philosophy, not the God of religion, stay in your own lane.

The religious or spiritual person has all the burden to take someone from Deism to Theism as Christopher Hitchens put it, and practically speaking a Deist is an Atheist when it comes to the claims of religion from religion's truth claims about the origins of the universe to its claims about morality.

A belief in the general possibility of the existence of a Creator God, Prime Mover, etc., does not preclude human beings from determining their own values, meaning, and morality.

The religious person has all the burden to prove that their God or the God of the Bible is an exemption from human beings determining their own values and meaning through story and not purely the product of human beings determining their own values and meaning through story.