◉ The Ontological Slide: Value Hierarchies, Semantic Capture, and the Redefinition of God

The claim that everyone has a “god” because everyone has a highest value combines a plausible account of human motivation with a disputed metaphysical conclusion. People do rank goods, organize life around concerns, and sometimes treat finite commitments with devotion normally associated with religion. None of this is yet evidence that the valued object is a deity or that any specified God-concept is instantiated. This paper reconstructs the strongest version of the claim and separates four levels: practical priority, religion-like role, deity status, and specified theism. It then applies three tests. A bridge test asks what premise connects one level to the next. A meaning test asks whether “god” retains the metaphysical content needed by the conclusion. A discrimination test asks whether the evidence is more expected if a specified theistic hypothesis is true than if it is false. The tactic fails all three when a value hierarchy is its only evidence. The result is a dilemma. On a functional reading, “god” can serve as a vivid metaphor for an organizing concern, but the conclusion is psychological or moral rather than metaphysical. On a literal reading, the conclusion is metaphysical, but functional resemblance does not supply the needed evidence. This does not show that no deity exists, forbid conceptual revision, or empty theological warnings about idolatry of their internal force. It shows only that redefining a highest value as a “god” cannot substitute for an argument for a deity or a specified form of theism.