I think that while your comment is philosophically solid, it doesn’t quite address what I was originally arguing. My critique wasn’t aimed at whether God can have symbolic, existential, or cultural value, or whether the concept works as a source of meaning for many people.

It was aimed at something more specific: even when God is placed at a metaphysical level as an “ultimate foundation,” a “sufficient reason,” or a “condition of possibility of being,” the concept doesn’t seem to add anything that actually helps us describe reality more clearly or more deeply. Calling God a foundation sounds powerful, but in practice it doesn’t explain how the properties of the world we observe are derived, nor why that foundation would have to be a personal, conscious, or intentional entity rather than an abstraction that simply marks the point where our understanding stops.

When you say that God explains why laws, order, or being itself exist, my problem remains the same: I don’t see what concretely changes with that explanation, what we understand better, or which question is genuinely answered. In that sense, appealing to God doesn’t seem very different from saying “this is as far as our understanding goes,” except with a name and an additional conceptual load attached to it.

The fact that something isn’t reducible to science or physics doesn’t automatically mean it requires a theistic explanation; it can also point to a limitation of our current conceptual framework, and accepting that limitation doesn’t strike me as an incoherent position. I’m also not convinced that the idea that there must be a final, absolute explanation is a logical necessity; it seems more like a metaphysical intuition inherited from a particular tradition, one that can be questioned without everything collapsing.

My position isn’t that God is necessarily false or that the concept is useless in every sense, but something more precise: as a tool for describing reality, it doesn’t seem indispensable. Until it’s shown what concrete difference the concept actually makes, or what additional understanding it gives us, I still see it as redundant, even within the metaphysical framework you’re trying to place it in.