If there is a creator, so what?

[The Grand Nudger]

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"

About as meaningful as truth regarding oxygen, since you decided to describe it as such.  That was your call.  

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.

That doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevant to what -you- proposed.  People lead full and whoile human lives, and achieved happiness, perfect or imperfect -without that knowledge.  OTOH, knowledge of oxygen, as you just described it, appears to have had a -greater- and more meaningful effect on human fullness, wholeness, and happiness. In that since we aqcvuired this knowledge there has been some demonstrable benefit. Good luck finding that in the case of your god, even if it exists. I can only conclude that the already diminutive form of caring with regards to oxygen knowledge is -greater- than any form of caring with regards to god knowledge.

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". 

These are simply the consequences of your description of god.  

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.

I;m waiting for you to propose a more progressive and intellectual god concept, rather than this regressive medeival nonsense.  

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.

So long as you're satisfied with why it would be important and how important my response is, sure.  It's so important, so very meaningful, that I'd simply say, "no thanks" - which is exactly what I say when someone offers me radishes.  Evil god as oxygen-come-radish.  

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.

That particular relationship doesn;t inform my actions or decisions.  I have already come to that realization through much more earthly means and concerns.  I turn down bloodmoney irl as well.  That I would turn down god is an afterthought not based upon any such relationship.  

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.

Something we can agree on.  It is good judgement, and it;s good judgement that I arrived without any reference to a god or any relationship.  Your god got preempted, in this regard.

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. 

This wasn;t out of your control at all.  No point in washing your hands like Pontius.  Itl;s your description of god that has me continuing to say "so what?"

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.

I think you're at least -trying- to make progress.  I don;t know why you can;t take those last steps though, since progress has already been made by great thinkers in the 800 years since Thomas -began- that work. For his time, working with what he had and what tools were available to him, he was a great thinker. The world, both secular and catholic, has since made a great many improvements upon the concepts and systems he attempted to reconcile. Both your god and our world are bigger than he could have envisioned, then. I don't see the point in this entrenchment. It was a non-controversial claim, then, that without god there could be no good, no happiness, perfect or imperfect, or that it;s sheer existence was a reason to care or be counted among the flock. Today, it's a non-starter with traditional, but not rational, support.