Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[Caecilian]

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.

Bolded added

So what are you saying here? Perhaps this:

God is (is ontologically identical with) goodness.

Which makes god a concept rather than an entity. Another interpretation would be that god is some sort of platonic essence of goodness, but really I hope that you're not saying that. Platonic essences are, to put it mildly, philosophically dubious.

Either way, god gets relegated to being a sort of abstractum. And abstracta don't have causal powers, can't create universes, and don't enter into personal relationships with people.

Beyond that, I honestly can't think of anything that you might mean by 'god'. You clearly want to identify him as some sort of entity rather than as an abstractum, but equally clearly you're not willing to accept the entailments of god being an entity. It all sounds incoherent to me.

Jumping to the other important part of your post:

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.

So you accept that the influence of god cannot be detected, even in theory. It therefore follows that:
1. Anything that could be explained with reference to god, could be explained at least as well without reference to god. Thus 'god' has zero explanatory value.
2. 'Miracles' either didn't happen, or have a naturalistic explanation.
3. Following on from 2, the bible becomes a collection of myths.

And what is true of god is also presumably true of other putative immaterial entities, such as angels and souls. So perhaps you'd like to agree or disagree with the following:

All facts, including all phenomenal facts, are metaphysically necessitated by the microphysical facts. If P is a statement that reports all the microphysical facts and Q is a statement that reports all phenomenal facts...then:
(Entailment Thesis) P -> Q is metaphysically necessary.

Think carefully, fr0d0. The quote above is a widely accepted formulation of materialist monism.

Do you want to join the Dark Side, fr0d0?