By the way, I probably should tell you that anytime you ask a 'God' related question on A2K, it will pretty much get bum-rushed by the resident A2K Atheists who will tell you the question is moot because there is no God.
And honestly, why wouldn't we? Isn't it reasonable to question basic assumptions when a question like this gets posted? And even more broadly, is it not incumbent on every intelligent person to challenge the basic veracity of the assumptions implied by a question like this? How could any reasonable person possibly let an assumption like that simply skate on through? Especially in an open forum like this?
For example, if someone popped in and asked "Why do Unicorns like to put their heads in virgin's laps?", would you expect that to just go through without challenge, and people to start an enthusiastic analysis of the motivations of the Unicorn? Does the word "God" (which I put in quotes because there are about a billion of them) earn some type of special pass that other magical entities don't? Is any particular "God" more magical than a Unicorn? Can there be such a thing as "more magical"? Is there more evidence for God than a Unicorn? Or is God simply a more "reasonable" form of magic in people's minds? The mere fact that I can equate God and Unicorns probably feels wrong to some people, but their feeling only demonstrates the point.
Now, to be fair, you might say to the person asking the question, "are you using the question to form a purely academic discussion on morality, or do you actually believe in Unicorns?" If the person says that the question is purely hypothetical then you might want to explore the concept on that basis alone. But if the person says they actually believe in Unicorns, would you really want to continue on with a careful analysis of the moral question knowing that they were already delusional? Might you become suspicious that this person's reasoning process was already impaired and think that you might not get a very rational discussion out of them?
On the other hand, if A2K were a church or something, then I could see a question about God going unchallenged. After all, if you're sitting in a room full of people who already believe in Unicorns, then you would expect a discussion of Unicorns to follow without challenge. But in an open forum like A2K it would be unrealistic not to expect to be challenged on the basic premise of the question, wouldn't it?
And likewise, in public and in daily life, the assumption of God should not go unchallenged, any more than the assumption of Unicorns should.