My point was not particularly to argue the case one demiurge or many , OG, but to compare the relative plausibility of the two explanatory schemes.
Let's look at the world through the eyes of people ignorant of science. They see powers at work which they don't understand and over which they have very little, and often no, control. These powers work often for them. But they can work just as often against them: what is a calm sea with a fair wind today may become a tidal wave and a hurricane tomorrow.
Polytheist's explanation: there is a God of the sea, superior to us in power, but, like us, prone on occasion to anger, malice and pique. When he's in a good mood the sea is calm; when he's p****d off he sends storms. This theory accounts for all the facts, and leaves only the practical problem of how do we keep him on our side. Result religion, priestcraft, animal and human sacrifice.
Explanation 2: the whole of creation is the work of a single supreme Deity who shares none of our limitation and, moreover, loves and has a plan for us. This theory accounts (maybe) for half the facts, but leaves us with the tricky theoretical problem of explaining the other. Result: religion, priestcraft, animal and human sacrifice, St. Thomas Aquinas and Khandro.
Any reflection on the residual problem in the second explanation reveals the inherent contradictions in traditional monotheism. How can He have the qualities attributed to Him and at the same time be responsible for what we see?