If there is a creator, so what?

[Ignorant]

I care whether or not "oxygen exists" is true as well, but that seems like an awfully diminutive form of caring.  As it turns out, whether or not it is true is about as relevant to whether or not this god business is true.  You can't actually provide a reason to care, in some other less-than-diminutive form, and so you present the funhouse mirror version of 

"Either you care about the truth or you don't"

It's an attempt to leverage some -other- obviously unrelated concepts attachments and transfer the credibility and positive judgement to the thing that you are incapable of articulating.  It's also a subtle form of character assassination.   This is why it fails [1]

Only to help you do your best.  To get passed the stumbling blocks common to amateur internet apologists.  If a diminutive form of caring about a meaningless form of relationship to an evil god is where we find ourselves....and it is [2] ....then I propose you haven't adequately or accurately communicated the message you have in mind, about the god you have in mind. [3]

I'm trying to help you get past the "well, some people don;t care about truth" -bullshit, that's just bog standard apologist trolling.  That's beneath both yourself, and your god, correct? [4]

1) I am afraid you've misunderstood my intention. Everyone cares about what is true. Being rational, humans can't help but care about what is true. HOWEVER, people value some truth things MORE than other true things. Hence, my formula: 

"Either the truth you acknowledge is meaningful to you, or it isn't"

In other words, people assign different amounts of meaning/importance to the things they hold true. They can't assign personal meaning/personal reason-to-care to things they don't hold true. Merely by being false, they do not carry a reason to care. For example:

Knowing the truth of oxygen and the historical lack of importance this knowledge has been to human well-being, you assign a very small amount of meaning to the truth... and you don't care "in any meaningful way" (-You, HERE) about it.

2) This is where YOU find YOURSELF and your own assessment of the proposed reality. Read what you just wrote. It is ripe with your own criteria: "a diminutive form of caring"; "A MEANINGLESS form of relationship"; "an EVIL god". 

If my description has painted an image of an "evil god", that is on me, and I have already taken responsibility for my own failings on this point.

But if you are waiting for my attempt to coerce your own judgments of the relation between god and humanity through argumentation/apologetics, you are waiting in vain.

You clearly already know about the relation between god and humanity as Catholicism presents it. So far, you've given two different assessments of that relation:

Goodness can't come from the god of vicarious redemption.  Only favors and exceptions to the good flow from that god.  It is only in denying it's offer that I can satisfy the good, and live that sort of imperfect happiness in this imperfect life that St. T was always babbling about. As to the perfect happiness in the next life, that one might gain if one only accepts jesus christ as lord and saviour...well, I'm incapable of doing so for ethical reasons...so I'll never get any of that..even if it does exist.

If it is a reality it's an irrelevant and ineffectual reality to me, and if it's not a reality, I still live.  See, doesn't matter either way.

On the one hand, if true, it would be relevant and effectual to you because "denying its offer [is the only way] that [you] can satisfy the good". Sounds pretty important.

On the other hand, if true, it would be irrelevant and ineffectual to you.

Whichever is the case, the point is that you're making a judgment of meaning about the hypothetical relationship. Either the high importance assigned to your specific response to that relationship as uniquely determining your satisfaction of the good (i.e. denying the offer it provides), or else that the relationship has no relevance for you, and therefore no relevance for your satisfaction of the good.

Given your understanding of the relationship, I'd say the former is a good judgment! If god is evil, and human reality can't but include a relation to this god, then trying to satisfy the good means a lifelong struggle AGAINST this god.<= Read that again. So what can I do? The only thing that remains is presenting a different understanding of the relationship and the god about which you MAY judge differently.

3) As I have already said many times, I agree.

4) That is not my position. My position is that everyone can't help BUT care about the truth. <= It's more of that Thomas babble. Even while caring about the truth, different people will assign different value to the things they hold true. <= Out of my, or anyone's control. 

Even so, your last sentence in your last response to Alasdair is very much appreciated. "far less of that [usual apologist asshattery] than usual and for that at least, I'll commend Igno." <= Thank you very much.