However, let's assume that Mr. Beale is correct. A god is necessary; a necessary foundation for a) the laws of logic and b) epistemology. What exactly does this mean?
Does this imply immutability, as Mr. Beale suggests? I certainly see no reason why a god needs to be immutable in order to provide a foundation for these principles. The god could simply be disinclined to change. Or the god could be quite powerful, but not particularly intelligent; it could lack the intellectual capacity necessary to change any aspect of it's will. Perhaps an even more likely candidate is the dead god; a god that began the universe and no longer exists. This sort of god would certainly provide the unchanging foundation (a result of it's trivial immutability due to death) that Mr. Beale requires for us to proceed with reason.
Does this foundational role of god imply intelligence, as Mr. Beale seems to believe? I certainly dont see why it does. As an amoeba can survive quite well acting with rudimentary responses to stimuli. This god could certainly be something along the lines of a cosmic amoeba; acting *solely* in accordance with it's will, without the ability to reflect, consider, or evaluate. Again, a dead god, which died after having established the "laws of logic" and the underlying structure of the universe which allows epistemological concepts to flourish, could certainly have been "behind it all."
Does this foundational role imply omnipotence? Again, I dont see omnipotence as necessary in the role assigned to Beale's deity. In fact, this god could be a rather weak being who accidentally set into play a system that resulted in the present universe. Given that, as with all deities, we have no idea *how* he (or it) did it, we cant really speculate as to the requisite intelligence for such an operation. The stability of the universe could in fact be a consequence of this being's divine impotence; the structure which resulted from the accident that caused the universe may be too much for this weak deity to have any significant effect on.
It seems to me in fact, that the deity which Beale seems to require, isn't even inconsistent with atheism! A god which died, and is no longer around, isn't there to be believed in.