Not obviously. One could argue that a world with just God in it is just as morally, aesthetically, and metaphysically good as a world with God and a space-time universe.

One could, but it'd be irrelevant. The question is whether such a God gives, not whether he's aiming for a set of criteria.

That's pretty much what a lot of philosophically-minded theists argue, although I would take issue with the claim, "If God has the capacity to do X, where X would be some good thing, then God does X", which seems to me to be implied by your last clause, although I might be misunderstanding you.

It depends on whether you think you've encapsulated all relevant features of X by 'some good thing'.

Also, if God creates the universe doesn't that mean everything is predetermined? Time is a property of the universe so in producing the universe all of time is also created. That implies that there are no moral choices for anybody since God has crafted all events.

No. "God created the universe" is not the same as "God crafted all events". It would be the case in a deterministic universe, but that begs the question.

As it happens, I have a problem with the idea of a God who is active within the Universe, on grounds similar to yours, but that's not to say it's the only possible theology.

Also, if God creates the universe doesn't that mean everything is predetermined? Time is a property of the universe so in producing the universe all of time is also created. That implies that there are no moral choices for anybody since God has crafted all events. This also brings to my mind why does the universe need a creator, it seems like then you have to ask who created the creator and it's creators all the way down. To my mind it would be more interesting to have God be a part of the universe since then you can apply the concept of time to God and introduce free will.

Just because God creates a universe that is in time, it doesn't follow that he creates all of it at once. Moreover, even if God did predetermine everything, it would not necessarily follow that no one ever makes a choice for which she's morally responsible, although in my opinion that would be the consequence.

As for why the universe needs a creator, it seems like what you're asking is, "why should we believe that the universe has a creator? Why not just believe it exists, and there's no explanation for why it exists?" That's an excellent question, and it amounts basically to the demand for an argument for the existence of God. Let me first say that most contemporary philosophers would agree that there is no need to posit a God, and that the existence of evil gives us reason, perhaps decisive reason, to deny that such a being exists. Still, the kinds of reasons some contemporary philosophers give for believing in God are things like: the universe seems to be 'fine-tuned' to allow for the emergence of intelligent life, therefore it makes sense to believe there's a fine-tuner.

Why not believe there's a fine-tuner of the fine-tuner? Well, you could, although if you have a fine-tuner of the universe you're already pretty far from most atheists. That said, if the fine-tuner is necessarily existent and omnipotent, then it's logically impossible that it could have a creator, which is why a lot of people make the move from: "the universe has a designer" to "the universe has a necessarily existent, omnipotent designer".

Why? I don't think that's obvious at all.

Then why keep living? As I said, empiricism is entirely the wrong way to go about such a problem. It hardly matters what evidence you see either way on the matter; if it's not a position you can live, rather than simply propose to score points, why should I take it seriously?

Does an all-loving all-powerful god create this universe? Doesn't s/he have to create all universes? Would it be selfish not to? Is it munificent to create universes with pain and suffering and death? Is it better to live a short and miserable life than to not have lived at all?

As mentioned before, these are contingent questions relevant to the other conditional probability, of the existence of God given this Universe. Since my original statement was that I regard the two to be entirely independent of each other, what's the relevance of them here?

I see nothing convincing me that to love you must create.

t shrug Ok, if ever I start arguing that construction I'll bear that in mind.

I wish I could stay, this is really interesting.

Why create a universe? It's mostly empty space and the places that aren't empty are mostly pretty lousy places for life. Why hellish places like Venus? How about instead of a universe, just creating somebody to be nice and loving to?

Do the other major religions have an all-powerful, all-loving God?

One could, but it'd be irrelevant. The question is whether such a God gives, not whether he's aiming for a set of criteria.

By "one could", I don't mean that it's a logically coherent or psychologically entertainable supposition. I mean instead that there's a long tradition of philosophical theology according to which God doesn't necessarily create a universe.

I don't quite know what, "The question is whether such a God gives, not whether he's aiming for a set of criteria" means. Is there supposed to be a word after "gives", or does it modify "a set of criteria"?

most contemporary philosophers would agree that there is no need to posit a God, and that the existence of evil gives us reason, perhaps decisive reason, to deny that such a being exists

It seems that implicit in this is a definition of god that's pretty Judeo-Christian.

What are the criteria for a God? I was discussing this other places -- I'm not precisely sure what mine are, but creating the universe is certainly a big step in the deity direction. Restoring life isn't -- but I don't know where "magic" and "science" fall away and are replaced by divinity. It's a fuzzy assed line.

How about instead of a universe, just creating somebody to be nice and loving to?

Definitionally, in such a case that somebody would be the universe. But that's again on the question of whether this universe provides evidence of a god, i.e. the second conditional, not the first.

Why create a universe? It's mostly empty space and the places that aren't empty are mostly pretty lousy places for life. Why hellish places like Venus? How about instead of a universe, just creating somebody to be nice and loving to?

Yeah, when our concepts of God came about everyone thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.

OTOH, the stars, galaxies and planets are pretty, so maybe that's why God created them. And if God just created the Big Bang, then at least one galaxy would be required for the Earth to be created and life to evolve (as most of the Earth's atoms were created in other stars).

Still, the kinds of reasons some contemporary philosophers give for believing in God are things like: the universe seems to be 'fine-tuned' to allow for the emergence of intelligent life, therefore it makes sense to believe there's a fine-tuner.

That always stikes me as a bit circular. If there are other Universes with different physical properties that end up with the emergence of intelligent life as we don't know it, then they could say the exact same thing about their Universe.