All Religious Bloodshed is Righteous if God Exists

Thanks Chaosism! Condonement Of Righteousness My opponent states that God could want those beliefs to exist as they are to achieve a particular end. The key word here is could. My opponent must speak on the behalf of ALL God’s that coincide with this definition. Many Gods that coincide with my opponent’s definition of God have expressed God’s will [1][2][3]. This means that we know what God’s will is in some religions and my opponent must account for all religions not only the ones that don’t describe God’s will. Wrong isn’t ambiguous in the context. By wrong I simply mean anything that goes against the will of God. The argument stands as a result. Argument Of Religious Bloodshed MP1 - I agree to the rephrasing that has been made to the first major premise. As a result there is nothing for me to refute here. MP3 - There was no misunderstanding on my behalf. My opponent has misunderstood what I said here. The premise states that if a [non-violent] religious belief is righteous, then all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous. Let’s make some substitutions here. If dancing, a (non violent) religious belief is righteous. Then all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous. These are the exact words of the premise except I’ve substituted the nonviolent belief with a nonviolent belief (so it coincides). So we can see that this is faulty. If my belief in something is righteous and is nonviolent then that does not warrant bloodshed in accordance with it (as my opponent suggests in this major premise). It needs justification. It says the word: all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous. This is unexplained. MP6 - I agree. I was merely pointing out that he probably wouldn’t. MP7 - Satan can be God’s equal without being another God and creating a polytheistic scenario. The definition of God in this debate includes the words “creator of the universe”. This means that Satan can still be omnipotent and omniscient without contradicting the definition of God. The fact that Satan and God are equal is not a contradiction. The definition of omnipotent specifically references to being able to do anything that is logically possible. The word ‘logically’ is key here. If they both went to move a rock nothing would happen and this would not violate omnipotence since if the rock moved, this means that it would contradict the laws of logic. This does not violate omnipotence. The same is with the world. One tries to create good. One tries to create evil. Therefore nothing happens and it is up to us - free will. MP8 and MP9 - My opponent ignores the situation that I presented regarding the fact that God is only willing to intervene with freewill when it is crucial (in circumstances such as when spreading the word of his existence is necessary. I extend this argument. Due to the fact that God only intervenes with free will only when necessary (as explained further last round), this means that it makes sense that God doesn’t intervene with individual scenarios. This would completely get rid of free will which God wants. God, in many beliefs has given us free will. There is absolutely no point in free will existing if God is correcting wrong behaviour. Regarding the specific scenario given, the analogy provided fails. The mouse analogy doesn’t account for the fact that it all depends on how you behaved in your previous life and what you believed in. You are in control of your actions and what you believe (hence why we have free will in many religions that believe in a God that falls in line with the definition presented). This means that it is not what God wants. God knows how you will behave. That does not equate to him controlling how you will behave. Think of it like this. You are control of the parameters (and you have told the subject what these parameters are in a holy book for example). We do not know what the result will be. God does. God can change the variables and the parameters but he doesn’t (at least not to our knowledge he doesn’t). We generally aren’t subject to unknown variables. Holy and religious books usually say that action x is bad and will thus cause you to go to hell. There are no unknown variables. We know what they are. Therefore, if we were creating an accurate analogy then it wouldn’t be because we wanted the mouse to fall into the fire. We would know whether the mouse would fall or not but we wouldn’t necessarily want it to do so. My opponent’s burden is not fulfilled. The resolution is negated. Sources [1] https://www.openbible.info... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://muslimvoices.org...