Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

In the first sentence highlighted you argue against god's opinions, but in the latter you add in that his existence, too, is irrelevant.  

I didn't, mostly because I wouldn't know what those opinions are...but it's conceivable that I may even share some of a gods opinions if a god existed.  If the truthmaker is the existence of a shared opinion - which I think we both agree can exist and accurately describes both explicit opinions between demonstrably existent beings and between purported gods and the genuine followers of their various religions- this is relativism.  The truthmaking property of a statement being agreement with said statement but not necessarily agreement with the facts of the matter the statement purports to report.  So, for example..Teh Gay isn't bad for anything about Teh Gay - it's bad because god says so and gods followers agree.  

  Is God's existence itself not one of your so-called facts of the matter?  And if not, why not?

No more or less so than ours is.  That we demonstrably exist and certainly hold opinions about things doesn't signify or demonstrate that our opinions are objective.  That they accurately refer to what they purport to report..rather than ourselves, some group we belong to, or some god we worship.

I'll note in passing that we have in this thread a person arguing that God holds ultimate moral responsibility for the existence that he created.  Is it not possible then that the nature or being of God is also the ultimate fact of the matter?

In a fundamentally subjective reality it would be...but alas, by the nature of subjectivity...every contravening fact of every other creatures nature and every diametrically opposed opinion to said gods would be equally, ultimately, and simultaneously true.

I don't personally believe that a god would have ultimate moral responsibility if they existed.  Specific incompetence.  We were just talking about how gods couldn't possibly do anything and everything or know anything and everything.  Some stuff is out of reach.  Impossible even for a god.  Incompetent agents are often believed to be less than fully responsible for the outcomes of their own actions, let alone the actions of all other actors.  The christian religion here in the states, for example, is dogshit not for anything a god did - it just can't keep it's people in line.  I presume this would still be true in a god filled world - the world the faithful already believe they inhabit.

I think you're conflating the subjective aspects of God with his objective aspects. While for the sake of argument I will accept your claim that his subjective aspect is irrelevant to morality, that doesn't preclude objective facts about him having moral bearing. I've recently been reading about how life molecules have a certain handedness, and scientists are worried that creating life forms possessing a different handedness would pose a hazard as such organisms might be invisible to the defenses of our standardly handed life forms. Is it not possible that God's nature is similarly handed with respect to his being and therefore any thing he creates will necessarily inherit said moral handedness?