I don't presume that he wouldn't and I don't presume that he would. I don't presume anything about Him. You project your own niceness onto a being whose motives I maintain are likely to be entirely inscrutable to us were He to exist.
Your entire argument lies in metaphor whereas mine lies in logic (i.e. post #126). By this analogy, you admit the existence of a god, and therefore are doomed with the rest of us anyway (if your analogy is true). Let's extend the analogy some more: If the creator is omnipotent, as you are now indicating, why would he need a cleaner? He would not need one. He could merely create another for his next in a series of never ending experiments. Sorry for waiting so long to repost. I've been playing a new computer game, and have otherwise been working the rest of the time.
The purpose of my metaphor was to explain a hypothetical case in which belief in a divine creator could be punished.
I would have thought it clear that I only admit the existence of a God for the purposes of that analogy, not in general. I have not indicated that the hypothetical creator is necessarily omnipotent; omnipotence is merely one possibility. For the avoidance of confusion please attach the words "might" and "possibly" and "hypothetically" to all statements I make in analogical arguments about the creator; I would have thought that obvious seeing as I am an atheist.
"seeing as I am an atheist"
Why are you an atheist?