Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[Caecilian]

How are 'being an ethical automaton' and 'being the instigator of reality' contradictory? I don't see any inconsistency. If anything, it seems rather elegant, since it removes the whole issue of ethical intent from the business of creation.

Well it was only that you used the phrase to suggest options which I'm suggesting weren't there. Now you're dropping the choice from your argument.

You seem unclear about what I'm arguing here, so I'll go over it again:
1. There are certain actions, intentions, perhaps even concepts which are 'good' i.e. morally positive.
2. A being is 'good' if it chooses to follow good actions, have good intentions, use good concepts etc. Choice is important here. For example, if someone were to be forced to be good, that wouldn't make them a good person, the reason being that the good thoughts/ deeds/ whatever weren't their choice.
3. God, as defined by yourself, is a being that by its very nature can only think/ act / whatever in a good way. Goodness is not a choice for god.
4. Therefore god is not good. Rather, god is a sort of ethical automaton that has no choice in ethical matters.

Having thought this over a bit, I think that I'd go even further. It seems to me that your version of god must always follow the single most moral course of action, which clearly entails that he has no choice about anything. In other words: god isn't just an ethical automaton, he's an automaton- period. God does not have free will.

No it wasn't. Your point was that schmod illogically limited = God. and I showed how shmod didn't = God unless the restriction was logical.

I don't see that Schmod's limitations are any more or less logical than god's. They're equivalent, and I have been saying this all along.

I don't define God as having no causal effect. I allow for the possibility that this could happen. My only caveat being that he would, to be consistent with the logical construct, never be seen to have effect.

You've misunderstood me here; perhaps I didn't write very clearly. But never mind- your response raises a much more important issue. You actually seem to be saying that:
1. God really could be causally impotent (!!).
and
2. Even if god can cause things, its a necessary part of his nature that his influence should be impossible to detect.

The problem with this is that if the influence of something is impossible to detect, even in theory, that its hard to see how it could possibly count as a cause. Causes are, after all, linked to their effects by chains of cause/effect. If there is no possibility of discerning the chain, then there is no way of ascribing causation.

So in addition to being an automaton, god has no causal powers at all. Great. Thats one omnipotent deity that we have here.

The universe is God and he is also more than that. It can never be a satisfactorily scientific description, other than to say, non scientific. ie... it can never be known. This is a theological answer, and theological logic. Nomologic has no bearing.

Theological logic ?!

Horse shit, more like it.