Constructing the image of the hypothetical God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All those are also to their benefit. I know, drug addiction doesn't benefit a person. But the act of injecting heroin is beneficial to you at that point in time because you want the high. Suicidal people feel that jumping off the building would be beneficial to them at that point in time. You push someone out of the way of a cab because sacrificing your well-being for the sake of somebody else's is in your character and seeing them get off without a scratch is something you want, so yes that was also an act beneficial for you in a way.

But you're now labeling, subjective, immediate relief as a 'benefit'.  While true as far as it goes, it really doesn't square with the creative motives you attribute to God.

I'd argue that it makes more sense than that. Basing his decisions off of something that we already knows makes sense to me. Besides, if he couldn't control his ability to make a universe then how could he be an all-powerful being?

It would make sense if God were human, but - by any reasonable definition - an omnimax Being isn't human and cannot be judged by human standards.  To even attempt to do so is the pathetic fallacy writ large.  In a reverse sort of way, this is like the human being who calls his pets his 'children' and thinks his houseplants know him by name.

How do we not know that we are free and autonomous compared to other species? We can observe that pretty easily.

Actually, we can't observe that at all.  To be autonomous means to be able to act in a matter that isn't coerced by an exterior agent.  My cats may not be autonomous, but they give a pretty damned good impression of being so.  What observations can you think of to support the point that human beings are the ONLY autonomous agents?  Bear in mind that you would need to come up with a set of observations that apply to every other species, from algae to Apatosaurs.

You can think of different ways that other species are "greater" than us, but our abilities eclipse theirs. We have logos (as Aristotle maybe mentioned in something he wrote?) which makes us unique and above other social animals. Also I don't have to tread on a stonefish. We can just kill them from afar by spilling some oil.

Actually, I'd say that some of our abilities eclipse some of theirs (and the reverse is manifestly true), is there a set of criteria you would use to define 'great' in this context?

Aristotle also claimed that men have more teeth than women, although it never occurred to him to have either of his wives open her mouth so he could count.  But is reasoned discourse necessarily an element of 'greatness'?

I don't see why not. Again, it makes more sense to me to base assumptions off of ourselves instead of just thinking of random values and characteristics.

But assumptions made off of ourselves may not even be valid.  As has been pointed out, there are more beetles than people and more bacteria than beetles.  You're trying to make assumptions about and attribute motives to a non-human entity.  You aren't describing an all-powerful creator, but a sort of demi-urge.

Boru