That’s actually the basis of Christian ethics as well. Doing good edifies not only the recipient but the giver.
Like I said, there is no “it” beyond what you made. Everything “it” does is completely dependent on the nature you gave “it”. “It” is nothing more than an extension of your will, unless there is a portion of “it” that is completely independent of you.
No, you don’t understand my argument. I said any choice depends on the choices available to you, including the choice to faciliate, or obstruct God’s will. It is much harder to love, or do good for, people that are evil and hateful to you. It is much easier to love, or do good for, people that are kind and loving to you. A person in the former situation may choose hate, and obstruct God’s will, while the very same person in the latter situation may choose love, and facilitate God’s will.
You don’t get a say. It’s my creation.
What does easy or hard have to do with it? A man who is hungry will eat whether he has to go foraging for game or can just pop something in the microwave. In fact, there are men who will do the former even when they can do the latter. Whether you are willing to make an effort is simply another decision. In fact, even if it is impossible to facilitate goodness given your circumstance, the mere desire — the mere dissatisfaction with your plight — is itself an effort, and is edifying to all who are inspired by your good character.
The simplified version of it is pretty much the bottom line rule for every religion that’s not about eating spiders and summoning demons. 
My version of it differs from Christian ethics in two main ways; firstly, there is nothing that’s an “automatic” bad or good thing. Murder can be good. Charity can be bad. Secondly, “good” is defined only by “that makes me feel more happy/less sad”.
So, for you, ethics are determined solely by feelings? Then would the quintessential good act be taking “happy pills”?
Yes - if that were the only factor. It wouldn’t be, because while for you as an individual it’s a good situation ( you pay money for them = bad, but you get the happiness from them which presumeably is better than the downer from losing money) but for others it may not be so good. You’ve had an affect on the owner of the pill-making factory, increasing his profits, a good thing. Same for the pharmacy owner. On the other hand, if you’re off in some euphoric dreamland there’s a chance you might miss out on helping someone else - for example, you miss taking your child to a sports match they wanted to go to. The collective happiness needs to be taken into account, not just the individual. It may be that taking happy pills will be a good thing overall, but we can’t say it would be just in and of itself. No action can be said to be automatically good just for being that action.
If the entire universe consisted of you and some happy pills, then yes, taking them would be the quintessential good act.
Exactly, you created it. Everything and anything it does, it does so becuase you made it that way.
But I believe that as well. Am I not a true Christian?
Well, we do differ there. I define good as that which edifies.
Nope. You’re asserting a cause and effect where none exists. I did not create everything and anything it does, but merely where it would start and what its potentials would be. Its abilities to facilitate and obstruct are exactly equal. Not everything has a cause. If you disagree, then please state what causes an electron’s orbit to collapse. Then go pick up your Nobel prize.
What about the masochistic personality? If a person is happy only when he is sad, is he happy or sad? If he is both, then how is goodness not simply everything? If he is only one or the other, how does your definition of goodness not find a contradiction? And if he is neither, then does your definition make him good or bad?
OK, that’s moving from hedonism to utilitarianism; either position is valid, but I don’t think it’s possible to hold both at the same time.
Do you identify “The Good” with maximising our own happiness, or maximising the overall happiness of humanity? If I do something that makes lots of other people very happy but causes me pain and suffering and unhappiness, am I doing the right or the wrong thing?
I think that’s just contradiction, to be honest. Masochism illustrates that there’s a difference between “happiness” and “pleasure”, or (alternatively) that “pleasure” and “pain” are not necessarily diametric opposites.
Someone may experience pleasure without experiencing happiness (and vice versa), or may be happy and experiencing pleasure while also experiencing pain. But I think we can safely define “sad” as “not happy” and “happy” as “not sad” without running into any contradictions in the real world.
What happiness, or pleasure, actually is, and how both or either of them relate to goodness, are completely different issues, of course.
Sigh, you don’t understand my point in the least bit, and unfortunately I don’t know how to make it any clearer. All of this stuff about Goodness, and the facilitation and obstruction thereof is completely besides the point. What the decision concerns does not matter for free will, all that matters is the process by which that decision is made. If that process is soley determined by God then it is he who makes the decision, by constructing the process in which the decision is made. All that happens after God pushes the “run” button is the execution of his designed program.
Overal, although sometimes the individual’s happiness can be greater than the collective happiness. I identify “The Good” as maximising the happiness and minimising of unhappiness of humanity (well, of anything that is capable of feeling such emotions, anyway).
All sorts of clever people can do all sorts of things. But the person must be more clever than the rest of humanity. The fake fur must match the species of the bear the tracks were from, the fake poop must contain things local to the area. Similarly, those who wrote the Bible, if they were thinking about it at all, were sure that their stories would pass muster. Today they don’t.
I want to believe in the things with the highest chance of being true - it seems you don’t.
No, since in my development the blindfolds I wore as a teenager have come off. I’m also shocked, shocked, to see this fallacy coming from your keyboard. 
You and I completely disagree about even the definition of freewill as it applies to this discussion, which is why I warned early on about equivocation. Theology has to do with God; teleology has to do with nature. The environment and what choices you have with respect to what’s around you is relevant only to one of those, which happens to be the one having nothing to do with the OP’s topic.
What’s so hard about that? Wilderness Willie knows the area very well, and is using the fur from bears he has shot.
Says who? 
Nothing is wrong with their stories.
You’re right. I want to leave nothing to chance.
I didn’t say the billions proved you wrong. I was countering your assertion that there are no tracks to see. Only one counter-example is required to refute the assertion. The worst you can accuse me of is overkill.
free will
n.
- The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: the power to choose that is unconstrained by divine will.
I think the main issue is that you’re assuming anything created by God must be constrained by God. What makes it impossible for God to create something that isn’t under His control?
Really? If one thinks he leaves nothing to chance, he is either an irrational fanatic (which you definitely are not) or someone who can do nothing for fear of having it go wrong. Doubtful also. So, unlikely.
Lots of people have seen Bigfoot tracks also, and lots of contradictory tracks.