Paganism vs. Monotheism

[Pyrrho]

You think of natural occurrences as being amoral because you view them as natural.  But if they were occurring by design, then it would be an entirely different matter.  Since many people seem confused by the subject being God, imagine how things would be if I could control the weather.  Suppose I cause a flood, and a few dozen people drown in it.  Is what I have done amoral?  And before you tell me that it may depend on the particulars, let us say, like God, I know in advance that it will kill those dozens of people (remember, God is supposedly omniscient, so he knows what the effects are of his actions).  So, in other words, I drown people with the weather.  In this imaginary scenario, am I an okay guy?  If not, then neither is God.

We can also view the matter in reverse.  Suppose I can control the weather, but I refuse to do so, and just let the flood kill the dozens of people.  I could have effortlessly (God is supposed to be omnipotent, so every action is effortless for such a being) prevented their deaths, but instead, I willfully and knowingly let them die.  And I let all of the people starve from droughts who 'naturally' starve, and etc.  In this imaginary scenario, am I an okay guy?  If not, then neither is God.

That's all very true; I suppose I looked past its utility in eliminating the most improbable definitions that one might enjoin to their concept of God. I, for one, cannot even begin to understand what practical import terms such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient" contain to be of any use in the first place. To play devil's advocate, and indulge my curiosity, however: Perhaps it is unfitting to degrade the Supreme Good (if such a quality really was inextricable from the Creator, which I don't see why it must be), by exemplifying instances of suffering, for two possible reasons: 1) It defines Good too narrowly, by making its concern exclusively anthropo- or geo-centric. 2) Cannot suffering, even in the most extreme forms, have intrinsic value? - the potential of bringing about greater degrees of good that would otherwise be impossible to realize?

You are sounding too much like Mother Teresa and her evil love of suffering, believing it is good for people to suffer, for me to be inclined to express my true feelings regarding your claims.  Do you really believe that suffering is good?  If you do, perhaps we should meet and you should let me torture you for a while and let you ponder how good that is.  If you refuse that, I will take it that you do not believe that suffering is good at all and are just saying nonsense.

With reference to "free will" and the question of its meaning or existence, all I said is that to even discuss moral evil it would seem one is required to acknowledge the presence of a rational will that is free to make moral decisions. That is to say, what is morality if all actions are determined by antecedents and the possibility of altering future consequents is ultimately beyond the capacity or responsibility of any individual to effect? Without freedom, how would human behavior be different - morally speaking - then other physical events, like the beating of a heart or a thunderstorm?

In what sense would "god" be anything other than just an unthinking force of nature if god has no rationality?  You have taken the god out of "god" and are describing natural forces.

In that it would be free, and natural forces - or regularities - are, perhaps, not.

I think that is going to get us into a very troublesome discussion of the nature of free will and whether or not we should be soft determinists instead of going with the 'libertarian free will' or 'hard determinist' view of things.  

Just FYI, I am, after thinking about it all for a while, a soft determinist in the sense that I do not see "free will," as commonly used in practical matters (e.g., courts of law), as conflicting with determinism.  But if you imagine something else, by all means, demonstrate this magical "free will," or give reasons to believe in it.