Quote:
I have to acknowledge a much better point than the OP. However, as I have said before, there is a rationale for determining a course of action in the scenario of an involved benevolent God. In the scenario of an uninvolved or malevolent God, you are no worse off for following it.
This is the idea you first brought up in the "Pascals wager with a twist" tread?
The first problem is, that when you are willing to accept that any possible God could exist, there will be one who punishes whatever principles you live by, in honor of the benevolent God you believe in.
The second problem I see, is actually problem and solution rolled into one.
If we get to make up any God we like, why not make God a campaign trail politician, except he keeps his promises. Essentially you get to behave however you like and still get full benefits.
Why create a God we have to appease, when we decide his character traits?