I'm assuming this is the episode you're referring to:

As usual I suppose, I'm at odds with a majority of believers as well as with a majority of unbelievers.
I think they're all making the same mistake. They're all envisioning a literal God person, and then believing or disbelieving in the existence of that literal person.

I've watched a lot of the Kuhn shows, and I don't recall one in which he interviews someone who takes God to be metaphor. There may well be such a show, and if anyone knows of it, I would love to be directed to it. But I'm guessing it doesn't exist. If it did it would effectively put an end to the reason for the show's existence, so I can see why it might be avoided.

I know some theologians spoke of God in a more metaphorical context; Paul Tillich comes to mind. I wonder if Kuhn has interviewed any philosophers who follow Tillich's or Spinoza's or Einstein's God.

There is quite a compelling and logical case to be made for a metaphorical God "who" is indeed perfect. And "who" did create a perfect universe. And "who" was most likely the original God of scripture, instead of the modern, post-Enlightenment, literal God-person we argue about today.

I listened to some of the Closer to Truth.
I was sruck-again- of the fact that 'modern' theology is very abstract and has little, if anything, to do with a personal god as perceived by the fundamentalists.

There are such concepts as god is "the ground of being" (whatever the hell that means).
The fine-tuning argument also can creep in. We live in a universe which is fine-tuned for life or existence according to this idea. Change one physical constant and nothing would be here. So what? It's really a circular argument. Besides the fact that in their hypothetical model, they only change ONE constant.

99.9999+ (put a google of 9s after the decimal point) of the universe is unsuited for human life. Even on Earth, there are many places which could kill us. The top of Sagarmatha (known to us biased westerners as Mt Everest), the aptly-named Death Valley, most depths in the ocean (am being generous when I say 'most'- try breathing underwater), and so on.
Then there's the problem of god 'knowing' everything that will ever happen. The universe- even just the parts we can see- is billions f light years in diameter. It's absurd.

Your observations are very good. This world is far from perfect in more way than I care to list.

Of course we are well suited for this world, we evolved on it. No god needed. Theologians simply misconstrue what exists with their ideology and theology trying to give substance to their nonsense.

An idea so completely debunked by Voltaire, in the humourous novel Candide, over two centuries ago now, that it is hard to see how anyone could still be using it. But then they are not interested in converting the world, only in deluding enough poor people to keep the pay cheques coming.

I believe there are versions of Christianity (theologies) that are logically consistent, but that doesn't mean they are true. A good liar is logically consistent!

I like how Worf talked about Klingon gods: Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were more trouble than they were worth.

Perfection that took billions of yrars to appear is hardly a perfect creation.

I wonder how many will stop liking Spock after this.

I wonder what theologians think of our star’s inevitable death and our collision course with the andromeda galaxy - to happen in relatively soon terms.
Perfect design huh.

I like Kuhn. He’s good.

I have had a big like of Spock for a long time. Also, like him being part Vulcan I am also part Neanderthal.

There is good and there is evil. What is the perfect of either?

Perfect. Hmm.

Cancer. Wars. Torture. Abuse. Floods. Earthquakes. Plagues. Hurricanes. Blizzards. Anthrax. Volcanoes. Hmm.