My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Absolute bullshit! The greater an entity, and the closer to perfection he is said to be, the higher the standard which he should be expected to live up to. If humans are held liable for accessory to crimes, then the gods of humans are that much more liable for their complicity in them. The only defense which the Xtian god's followers can offer as an excuse is the absolute bullshit "Free Will" argument, and that's just shameful special pleading, plus  ad hoc garbage.

How does Santa deliver all those toys to all the children in the world in one night? He doesn't, it's absolute bullshit. But if you accept for the sake of argument that he does so you can discuss the implications of the feat, it's a little late to backtrack to 'it's complete bullshit'.

As the Xtians say on accepting Jebus as "yaw lawrd n' Save-yawr", "It's never too late".

Christians don't have to offer adequate excuses for God's inaction. If God is super-good and omniscient and all-powerful and has freewill himself; then his actions or inactions MUST be completely justified by definition and if Christians can't explain how they're justified, it just means God has super good reasons that we can't currently perceive, and might not be equipped to comprehend if we could. The standard Christian answer to the Problem of Evil is that evil exists because without it a greater good could not be achieved or a greater evil would not be prevented. At this point, they have to accept some limitations on God's power, usually starting with not being able to do the impossible (though Drich goes after the super-good part). At this point, their concept of God is reduced (once again) to something unfalsifiable: An omnibenevolent being that knows everything that can be known and can do anything that can be done, that created the universe. He doesn't want there to be any evil, because he's omnibenevolent, so any evil that exists must be because there is a reason why it's not possible to avoid all of it. Presumably God is doing the best he can and things would be a lot worse if not for his efforts. It's a fairy tale, but it's a consistent and unfalsifiable one.

I'm not sure how Christians justify 'omnipotence' for a being that has to rest after a long week of creating everything in the first place.

If the Xtian god's power is limited in any way, then he is not omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then he would not allow anything to happen which really and truly displeases him. If Xtians accept limitations on his power, then they contradict their assertion on his omnipotence, which they invariably make, regarding his power. In respect to these conditions, they do engage in special pleading when they fail to hold him culpable for allowing evil things to happen.

The above simply couldn't have been summed up better by Epicurous, whose words apply no differently to Xtians:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”