Re: Suppose the transcendent deity is a sadist?

I suppose I discounted the notion that the deity might be sadistic, or incompetent, because this is not held to be the case by any world religion, and because I think such a being would be diabolic rather than divine – a devil rather than a deity – and not a being worthy of worship. I cannot see that the existence of such a being would have any relevance to our lives. For us, such a scenario would be equivalent to atheism; and although I cannot prove that such a demiurge does not exist, I cannot see any reason to posit such a being. If we discount the notion of a demiurge or devil, and restrict the term 'god' to a being worthy of our love, worship and fealty, I think the argument from suffering still stands. You are right that in Hinduism explanations for the universe downplay the role of intentionality in favour of the idea that the world is merely the outcome of the deity's lila, sport or play. Our universe is merely one of a series without beginning or end. Lord Vishnu floats on the cosmic ocean, couched upon the coils of the great serpent Sesa, whose other name, Ananta, means Unending. From Vishnu's navel springs a lotus, and when it blooms it reveals Lord Brahma, the celestial engineer of the current universe. The sprouting and growth of a lotus from Vishnu's navel makes the whole thing seem like a natural process rather than a deliberate act of intentionality. Perhaps this constitutes an oblique admission that the world has no rational explanation at all. I am not sure about the relevance of the linked material. I don't think the existence of beauty solves the problem of evil or establishes the existence of God. There may, for aught I know, be more beauty than ugliness in the world, and more bliss than agony, but that still doesn't explain why there should be any agony at all, particularly of the kind that is no one's fault and serves no purpose. A single creature dying in agony is sufficient to spoil the whole of creation. What does it matter to such a creature if his torture serves some higher purpose that he cannot comprehend, or adds to the organic beauty of the totality that is the object of contemplation by God. Is the god's felicity really worth such suffering? Thanks for your very interesting reply!