You're right lucifer and thats exactly my point, if we have a discussion about that then those types of things will inevitably come up and so i think that the infinite god is not really a topic that we can discuss with any real boundaries meaning that the discussion's purpose is lost in that no one truth discovered can be considered a truth because its base would be shaky. talking about the infinite god you could say anything you like such as god doing evil while remaining perfectly good because such a statement is beyond logical boundaries like the infinite god.
  I think if we are going to discuss god then we should not discuss what he can and cant do because no matter what, being "god" implies the ability to do anything no matter how logically absurd. Instead the subject of god should be approached from within the bounds of logic to show what of god we can know if there is a god at all.
  This would entail questioning faith, i suppose, most of all to show if faith in a god that cannot be approached from a logical standpoint is logical or not.
  In the end we cannot know a god who is beyond our logic and we cannot discuss god within the boundaries of logic, so we should fall back to the next best thing which is the logic that brought us to question the characteristics of god in the first place. The logic behind that questioning on which we should fall back is based on an assumed truth that is that god exists. So maybe we should talk about the existence of god or at least whether it is logical to believe in one of not.
  This is just my humble opinion and i would be happy to learn of something ive missed in this sequence of attempts at logic in approaching this discussion.

  I think that it is funny that, from my point of view, if you want to be totally thorough, you have to examine the logic of discussing even before you examine the logic of the subject under discussion.