You make this sound much more absurd than how the process of defining words for a specific language really is. When people invent a new language, like English as an example when it was new, then the total number of people who spoke the language existed in few numbers, and, prior to the invention of the internet, those who knew English must’ve lived in relatively close proximity to one another. So, to say that all, or the overwhelming majority, of English speakers must’ve come together, either formally through meetings, or else informally by living in tight-knit communities and by passing the language amongst themselves for a time—Making sense of the language amongst themselves, and correcting oddities in the language where the English-speaking community found it necessary—Is not a crazy proposition. And older languages, like English, and especially those like Chinese—which are still in common usage today, which often see gradual developments throughout their lifetimes, and which are often spoken by very large numbers of people—Cannot be formally defined by literally every language speaker in the whole world, but do need consensus from a body of people who specialize in the language, such as from professional linguists who are experts in the language of English and Chinese, for example. So, even if it is possible for the common English speaker to use certain words in colloquial, or oftentimes metaphorical or poetical ways in their daily lives—Even at the cost of their incongruence with definitional consensus—It is foolish to use language colloquially in academic spheres, especially philosophical ones, because such spheres demand rigor and unambiguity in arguments, because if a specific word could mean two or more completely different things—Given that they are used colloquially in an argument—then the structure of an entire argument could be changed, either in terms of validity or, more often, soundness, which can undermine one’s ability to make effective arguments, period. So, consensus is very important in linguistics, it is not as absurd of a process as getting every language speaker on earth into a room to debate the meaning of a specific word, and it is very important in philosophical debates, such as the one which the OP started up regarding the “popcorn God”. So, it is very important that his definition of “God” is crystal clear (So, does the OP mean “God” or “Gods/Deities”?), otherwise, it will be nearly impossible for any of us to create an effective argument in response to his initial question, hence why I am trying to clarify what “God” means, when the OP throws the word out in his first post, and how his post seems like a contradiction in terms when it compares what he interprets what “God” is, and what God, by definition, is. That is why I am willing to have this argument with you, as tedious and painful as it may be to you.
Because—and I hate to have to say it—Such a being would not be God, by definition. The fact that I’ve given you four reputable English dictionaries to read through, and that’ve you’ve failed to give me even one definition that is contrary to my definition of God, then you’ve effectively proven my case to be true, which is that God as a “maximal being” is the only correct way to define “God”, and so isn’t equivocal in definitional usage, and so ought to be the only definition that is used in philosophical discussion, as this forum is a place for, and which the OP’s post is supposed to conform to.
What is hilarious about this response is that, for one, your source is from Wikipedia of all places, and not from any of the academic sources which I’ve set forth, and so the only definition of God which you could find online that isn’t like my own definition is from a crowdsourced website, and so, how do you even know how credible this citation truly is? Wikipedia articles aren’t peer-reviewed, are non-academic, and so it is a pure coin-toss, on your part, as to whether this definition of dystheism was written by people who are well-read on the topic, or a bunch of armchair websurfers who’ve probably stumbled upon a handful of websites which seem to support the definition of dystheism, but are refuted by deeper scholarship on the topic of dystheism. The second thing that is funny about this article is that, even if I grant it credence for the sake of argument, it specifically says, quote, " Dystheism (from Ancient Greek: δυσ-, romanized: dus-, lit. ‘bad’; θεός, theos, ‘god’) is the belief that a god is not wholly good and can even be considered evil." And when you click on the link for “A god”, it brings you back towards deities, and not God, specifically. So, even your fringe alternative definition as to what “God” is, doesn’t even point, specifically, towards God by definition, but to generic creator beings which are labelled Deities.
That is exactly what the teleological argument does. The point that the argument tries to make is that it makes the point that fine-tuning exists in our universe, and that if it is the case that fine-tuning exists in our universe, then it provides strong evidence for the existence of a fine-tuner, given that no other sufficient, or probable, alternative explanation exists to undermine the conclusion that a fine-tuner exists. If the argument was like, “The universe demonstrates fine tuning, therefore, God likely exists”, then you are presuming much more than what the argument sets out to prove, because God, if he exists as defined, is much more than merely a fine-tuner, even if God would be a fine-tuner if he existed. The teleological argument, therefore, points towards the existence of a being which is much closer in attributes to God than to any other naturalistic explanation, but it is more supplementary than it is definitive for proving God by definition, which the role of arguments such as the Cosmological and Ontological arguments serve more effectively than the Teleological argument.
There is a large distinction between pedantry and stubbornness when debating on a philosophical topic, such as the attributes of God. The former serves to clarify what we are talking about, so that we don’t argue in circles and so our arguments don’t end up becoming incoherent, and the latter serves to be caught up on specific details or specific arguments for the mere sake of preserving one’s worldview, even if it is unproductive and doesn’t bring the debaters closer to the truth. This whole discussion so far, I’ve pulled the definition of “God” from reputable sources, distinguished it from the common misusage of “Gods”, plural, and made arguments as to why the OP’s understanding of God is seemingly mistaken, and why your defense of his understanding of God doesn’t seem to work. None of these techniques demonstrate stubbornness, but rather demonstrate that I am trying to figure out what the hell you, and the OP, are trying to say, where your thinking lies, where your reasons come from, and how you justify your positions. You’ve not given me a single good reason to justify why my method of argumentation is truly stubborn, you’ve simply thrown the title out and failed to elaborate on it further.