Recently, SC alluded to a sequence of events which had the possibility of convincing him that the Gnostic Demiurge exists. Now it can be revealed: SC has been offered, and has accepted, a transfer to another position within his company...as a marketer! Only an evil being with a perverse sense of humor could have designed a universe where one can declare "Beware of Marketing" day and then move into a job doing it full-time. (Note: It's not a promotion, so congratulations are not in order.)
In fact, your host is not sincerely convinced of the Demiurge's literal existence. However, this offers an excuse to repeat an anecdote told by the vastly underappreciated Bertrand Russell, from whose writings SC has learned a little about semantics, and a lot about narcissism. The background: Russell, a militant atheist, had been contemplating St. Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of a certain higher power who would presumably be quite displeased with Russell:
I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity Lane, when I saw in a flash (or thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught it: 'Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound.'
Not long after, Russell decided that he had been wrong. But for the few days when he accepted an argument for the existence of G-d (SC is Jewish, and will not write that out; no comments, please), it would not have been accurate to say that Russell was suddenly a theist. Similarly, SC's present feeling that the present turn of events is a splendid argument for the Demiurge does not translate into an actual commitment to Gnosticism.
SC does not have the Russell quote memorized, and found some interesting things while looking for it with Google. For one, a page of philosophical quotes, held to be humorous by its author even though the original sources might not agree. The author, a Professor Norman Swartz, definitely shares SC's sense of humor. As for the philosophical issue, Stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy has a good discussion of ontological arguments