In treating any questions about God's existence, we do well to begin with some clarity regarding what (or whom) we are asking about: in this case, God's existence. Are we asking about a morally indefinite but strikingly powerful creator? Many academic writers on theism, "mere theism," deism, atheism, agnosticism and related philosophical positions inquire about the existence of such a creator, whatever the creator's moral character may be. The creator in question may turn out to be an evil tyrant or at least a morally indifferent slouch. Such inquiry, however earnest and rigorous in its search for a creator, may rest on a misleading bias regarding God's character and would thus be significantly different from inquiry about the existence of a God who is worthy of worship, who is morally perfect, including being perfectly loving toward all persons.

...

In keeping with a prominent traditional usage, we can fruitfully use the term God as a most exalted title rather than as a name. Part of the value of using the title thus is that it allows us to engage some central theological concerns of traditional monotheism (particularly of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) without arbitrarily dismissing atheists and agnostics by a namin fiat. For better or worse, people cannot name or postulate God into existence by refusing to imagine that God does not exist. Likewise, people cannot define or postulate God out of existence, as if a mere definition could block the actual existence of God. A god worthy or worship would not be at the linguistic mercy of people in any such way. The title God, on the proposed usage, signifies a being worthy of worship, even if such a being fails to exist and thus even if the title fails to refer to an actual being.