It seems like the main purpose of Spinoza's God is to have an unfalsifiable God.
The problem with other Gods like the Christian God is that they tend to come with requirements about the world that are easy to disprove. For example, the Christian God is not very compatible with the existence of natural evil. By removing all of those implications and other attributes, you arrive a Spinoza's God, a God so vague / powerless that it cannot be argued against.
There is no such thing as natural evil. The Inverse of love is fear. Whether something is good or evil has more to do with the social constructs of the times than any morality. That said, a morality based on Truth, Freedom, and Love is cooperative as above and below. The unfalsifiable god is the Truth god.
No, that is exactly counter to the point the person you were replying to was making. Amorphous, fluffy definitions of god can be unfalsifiable. But if you declare detailed attributes of your god, they can be in contradiction and thus the claims about that god are falsifiable.
But in practice, people are terrific at rationalizing and will overlook all those contradiction and continue to believe their god is the right one.
The problem with other Gods like the Christian God is that they tend to come with requirements about the world that are easy to disprove. For example, the Christian God is not very compatible with the existence of natural evil. By removing all of those implications and other attributes, you arrive a Spinoza's God, a God so vague / powerless that it cannot be argued against.