Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
I'm just surprised you can even listen to a JEDP'er without snickering after reading Keller (I admit ... I have a lower criticism bias).
I can see your point ... metaphysically speaking, the definition of evil can certainly be allusive. But determining a somewhat objective standard for right and wrong is not, in my opinion, so elusive.
I think it is safe to say that most people would consider incest detestable and I doubt Genghis Khan (whom Brad mentioned) would find much joy in having his wife raped and murdered by a rival. One question would be whether there is such a thing as an unalienable human right (do we have the right to live? To be free? To pursue happiness (understood by some to include the right to own private property)? If so, then, the ethical starting point is clearly defined.
P.S. Stop banging your head, will ya?
Why hasn't anyone leapt to the task of defining god?
So ... you are wondering why someone isn't trying to put a being likely to be possessive of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal attributes?
The three blind men were all wrong. Even if your analogy doesn't quite stand (in my opinion), I think you are right ... our knowledge of a/the supreme being is sketchy and incomplete at best. At most, we know all we need to know and nothing more.
You are touching on the issue of secondary causes ... don't have the time right now to elaborate. I'll try a little later.
So then the forebearance of God's judgement is not indicative of His inability, but rather of mercifulness? That, anyway, seems to be the next logical step to your line of thinking.