I have this irk with creationism. This very specific problem.

While creationism itself is laughable.
One part always got me. It's never a creation debate, it's an anti-evolution debate.

I have never seen a debate about creationism that ignores evolution. Someone always has to drag it in.
This is where evolution gets points in my book, you can have a discussion of evolution and creationism can never be brought up.
But when you talk about creationism's flaws.

"Well, evolution can't explain..."
"Evolution doesn't make since either because..."

That's what sad about creationism. Outside of the (Other) logically flawed arguments, they only have a negative argument working for them.

F1rst of, My spelloring is horable. Mr. Bear

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then this creator is perfectly responsible for his creation, as any and all potential or actual existents would only exist contingent upon the fiat of this omnipotent, omniscient creator. Since this would include the sum total of all possible influences on any outcome, it necessarily follows that this creator is ultimately responsible for every outcome. Therefore, the free will defense for the problem of evil must fail.

Do any theologians hold to this view?

Yeah. A few minor, relatively unknown theologians hold to it. Two that I know of go by the names Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther.

(from left to right)
Rook, Sapient, Kelly

Picture taken at Sapients computer in the new RRS home.

This video talks about four common fallacies that theists constantly keep posting up on the comment boxes. I don't use dawkins to make any of my points

I've been talking to theists lately. Mostly on GodTube, but on other places as well. Here's a conversation I had with a particular GodTuber, mikepl82.
It started out with this comment on the Christian response to "The God Who Wasn't There". (My name on GodTube is nothingman)

What goes around comes around. Blah blah blah blah blah.

The idea of karma presents itself as a method of inviting "good" into ones life by expelling "good" into the cosmic void. It takes cosmic forces to gather your "good" and "bad", but whatever plant you raise will present you with a yield or harvest of earned rewards.

Whatever.

If there truly was a way to gain a cosmic reward, for good or ill, it would present itself most assuredly in the immediate and horrible deaths of practically everybody on earth! Nearly everyone has done something that would cause the flow of "bad karma", inviting sure disaster.

Pascal's Gambit or Pascal's Wager, is a rather famous rhetorical ploy. It is not an argument for 'god', instead, it attempts to outline the pragmatic benefits of believing in a god. As such, it is intriguing because it is intended to gain believers without having to solve the impossible problem of offering proof of God's existence. Therefore, Pascal's wager is alluring in its simplicity. It's really an attack on doubt, for it states that the requirement of certainty in belief is a false one. Either 'God' exists or 'he' does not. If 'he' exists and you are a beliver, you "win". If 'he' does not exist and you believe, nothing is lost. However, If 'he' does exist and you are not a believer, you lose out on eternal life. Of the four possible permutations:

Belief and God exists = believer is saved

Non Belief and God exists = non believer suffers hellfire

Belief and God does not exist = believer does not suffer more than non believer

Non Belief and God does not exist = non believer does as well as believer

...there is no place where a non believer benefits over a believer and in no case does belief ever bring harm. Therefore, logically, one should be a believer in god, if for no other reason than that atheism cannot ever benefit a person regarding the afterlife.

What is Inductive Logic?

Gregory Lopez and Chris Smith

We can define any type of logic as a formal a priori system (axiomatic) that is usually employed in reasoning. In general, if we feed in true propositions, and follow the rules of the particular system, the logic will crank out true conclusions.

We can define 'induction" as a thought process that involves moving from particular observations of real world phenomena to general rules about all similar types of phenomena (a posteriori). We hold that these rules that we generate are probably, but not certainly, true, because such claims are not tautologies.