You were arguing that it's naughty of God to punish people for not believing him, now you're saying that the only people who should be punished by him are those who believe in him? If I'm not understanding you, it's because you're not being clear.

Those are not opposites.

It's not a God of the gaps argument to argue for an intelligence behind the universe. It's asking a purpose and cause question, not a question of how the universe itself works.

Of course it is when you can't prove an intelligent thing exists without presupposing the possibility in the first place. When you presuppose that God is an option, especially if you can't rule out the possibility of any other option, you are using a God of the gaps argument. If you notice when William Lane Craig gets to this point, where he has to show that this first cause is intelligent, he speaks rather fast, and says some gibberish about how it had to have intent, and thus must be intelligent, and a few other things, but he doesn't dwell on it long. That is because that is the weakest part of his argument, and he knows it. You can't get to intelligent first cause from first cause. The mere fact that quantum mechanics and modern cosmology can show possibilities for the creation of the universe that are totally without a god shows that you can't rule out all other possibilities. Plus, those possibilities are not intelligent. They don't act with volition. The only way to get to an intelligent god from the cosmological argument is to just assert it without evidence or necessity. This assertion is God of the gaps. I can't explain it without a God, therefore it was God. Without the unnecessary assertion, God is totally uncalled for in the cosmological argument.

Either you are not following the conversation or you aren't understanding what I am saying.

You were arguing that it's naughty of God to punish people for not believing him, now you're saying that the only people who should be punished by him are those who believe in him? If I'm not understanding you, it's because you're not being clear.

I would not call anything God unless it was at least intelligent. Nothing about an argument for a first cause necessitates an intelligent being unless you argue god of the gaps.

It's not a God of the gaps argument to argue for an intelligence behind the universe. It's asking a purpose and cause question, not a question of how the universe itself works.
Figuring out how a combustion engine doesn't mean that Mr Ford as a designer is a man-of-the-gaps argument. (and in case you're tempted to assume that this is the kind of argument often labelled as ID, it's not.. that term has been hi-jacked by anti-evolutionary proponents, and that is not what I'm arguing. please be clear on that.)
In fact, my short answer was partially intended to indicate that I don't have a huge desire to go down this path of the converstaion.

Weren't you just arguing a moment ago that it's the other way around?

Either you are not following the conversation or you aren't understanding what I am saying.

Not so.

Wow, that's the best refutation I've gotten forever. I hope we can have more of these useless interchanges.

Of course it makes sense. Only people that believe in it should be expected to go to hell.

Weren't you just arguing a moment ago that it's the other way around?

Nothing about an argument for a first cause necessitates an intelligent being unless you argue god of the gaps.

Not so.

That doesn't even make sense.

Of course it makes sense. Only people that believe in it should be expected to go to hell.

No, arguments about first causes are not god-of-the-gaps.

Okay, let's get this straight. There must be a first cause, therefore it must be God. You can say that God is whatever the first cause is, but I would not call anything God unless it was at least intelligent. Nothing about an argument for a first cause necessitates an intelligent being unless you argue god of the gaps.