Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[fr0d0]

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.

There you go introducing the choice back into the equation. Like this has any bearing on the positive entity. You have no thing, then some thing. This 'thing' has no choice but to be a 'thing'. Does that preclude this thing from being a thing? Apparently so in your reasoning.

What you're saying about God is what theologians already agree upon. God has no choice in being good - that is God. God is good. You're supporting the theological argument.

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.

Absolutely. I agree.

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.

No, you're condition for Schmod was logical except for his inability to affect purple. Do you see how that is not equivalent?

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 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.

1. you just said the opposite of what I said
2. correct

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.

Everything and nothing is complete evidence of Gods direct action or inaction. Depending how you look at it, which is kinda the point.

Theological logic ?!

Horse shit, more like it.

I lol'd at that one too