Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[FallentoReason]

I think in a world where this jerk of a god exists, things would be different, as in, our perception and logical constructs would fit around that reality.

Why?  More god koolaid.  People think and say things like "if god existed, the world would be more or less of x" without ever explaining why...wihout ever voicing all of those silent assumptions.  Allow me to propose an alternative..no matter what god is, or isn't..the world would be exactly -as- it is.

It's not that simple. God being god, he can make whatever proposition true. In the universe next door, the resident God said 2 + 2 would equal 5, and they tell me it's logical over there. 

Kant comes to mind, how he thinks morality is nothing more than an agent acting rationally.

I'd disagree heartily with that, morality and rationality are rarely, if ever, the same things.  We can rationally act upon moral precepts, we can rationalize over moral precepts...but where is the reason in any specific moral precept?

I'm sure you're familiar with Kant's imperatives..? Suppose you need to really badly pass an exam. You will it that selling cheat sheets is universally acceptable. Now cheat sheets are the norm, which means the lecturers have to change the way exams are done to remove the problem, I dunno, a unique set of questions for each student on the computer. Your universal rule didn't logically help you achieve your will, and coincidentally it's often regarded that cheating is wrong. Logic + morals = pretty good explanation.

If we for a second entertain that idea as being the true interpretation of morality, then a world where a seemingly trivial god with seemingly ammoral rules exists, we would come to the rational conclusion that it must be "good".

Why?  What's rational in the sentence above, connect the dots?

That the source of morality must be good? If achieving your will is a good thing for oneself, then the logic behind it must be inherently good. That inherent good resides with the creator of such logic and rules and abstract truth.

All of this is based on the assumption that since this god created that universe, it also set in place its ammoral metaphysics as being *the* abstract truths. 

What does the ammoral have to do with the moral?

Sorry, I think I used the wrong word. What I mean is trivial morals - roll the dice and those are the morals you get in that universe. 

As far as worship goes, I don't know if I would bow down in a religious way, but I would definitely revere and acknowledge it?

Why would you, is the question?  If you had a father who beat the shit out of you, would you "revere and acknowledge" that?

No, because a father that would do that doesn't seem to get Kant, and therefore cannot be God.

Much like a scientists reveres physical laws. Much like a mathematician reveres axioms. Much like an artist reveres beauty where ever it's found.

Pointless equivocations.  We're talking gods, not physics, maths, art...or any of the various practitioners.  If god was a dick, would you "acknowledge and revere" it?  I wouldn't.  I couldn't care less.  There are plenty of dicks that exist irl, I;m neither acknowledging them specifically nor am I revering them.  If they all jumped off a cliff like the proverbial swine of christ - I wouldn't bat an eyelid.  Should it be different if the dick in question were a god?  How about a "nice guy" god, a buddy christ?  What's the relevance, who cares, why?

If god was a dick, I think that universe actually has no god. Unless the trivial logic in that universe lines up with the trivial self-portrayal of its god, then any apparent god that exists is either lacking in god-like attributes, or is made up.[/quote]