How far reaching are God's powers?

[MilesAbbott81]

So, let me see if I get this.  You believe that people who aren't to blame are not blameless?  I'm pretty sure that's what blameless means.  What exactly are they being blamed for?  It sounds an awful lot like blaming someone for being black or having brown hair.  Is it right to punish someone for being black?

Just because you're made to be evil doesn't mean you're blameless, because you're evil. Why is this so difficult to understand? When you do evil acts, you are guilty of committing evil acts, regardless of your nature. You have sinned, whether you had any say in the matter or not doesn't change that fact.

It's not the same thing as punishing someone for some physical characteristic, because physical characteristics don't commit evil acts. They're not even in the same ballpark, so your analogy is ridiculous.

And you're right, I wasn't aware of your greater context.  So in other words, if someone uses bad to do good, that would be moral, correct?  Let's try this out.  Let's say there are 6 people in an emergency room, one of whom can be easily fixed, but the other five will need an organ transplant which will not be available.  If I kill the one guy for his organs so that the other 5 can live, then I've done bad to accomplish a greater good.  So that would be moral to you, killing the one guy?

Again, you distill a complex reality into some worthless imaginary scenario that has no true similarity. Nothing in that scenario takes any nuance into account.

For instance, who says any of them deserve to live? Who says saving any of them is a good thing to do? Maybe they deserve to suffer and die. After all, none of them are innocent, because everyone is evil. So what you view as a potentially good thing may be an evil thing, because man is making the determination and not God.

Saints don't act of their own accord, at least they're not supposed to. As I mentioned to Happy Skeptic, perhaps his prayer to save his nephew wasn't heard because the child needed to die, say to punish the child's parents. It might seem like a good thing to pray for the child, but failing to take God's persepective into account or acting according to His will is likely not going to result in a positive outcome.

People think that charity is good. Is it, at least all the time? There are many places in the world that are so dependent on corporate charity that, if it's ever withdrawn, will end up starving to death or at least struggling mightily. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Well, that would be all well and good if we can depend upon your information about God, but you're forgetting the first premise here.  In this exercise we're assuming that you are wrong in one or more of your particulars about God.  That's the assumption.  And you need to show how you would figure that out to be the case.  You can't depend upon any of your specific beliefs about God as it's possible that very belief that you are depending on may be one of the things that you are wrong about.  So the above would be reliable if your knowledge of God were reliable.  But that's not the question.  The question is how would you discover you are wrong about God, if in fact you are wrong in one or more particulars.  In that case, your answer is of no use.

Try again.  How would you discover that you are wrong?

I don't understand your problem with my answer. My answers are based on truths evident from Scripture. For instance, God makes clear that He doesn't put certain diseases on His people: “If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His eyes, and pay attention to His commands, and keep all His statutes, then I will not bring on you any of the diseases I inflicted on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.” (Exodus 15:26)

Therefore, if I get some terminal illness, then clearly I can conclude that I'm not a true Christian. If you're asking me to disprove the Scriptures, and somehow objectively prove to you that They are wrong, how could I possibly do that? There is no way to know the heart of another person, so any possible experiment would be inherently flawed.

Short of some amazingly obvious newfound evidence, there isn't going to be any way to prove anyone wrong. But perhaps I misunderstand your question.