YOU are more moral than the Abrhamic GOD!!!

I am going to take a hypothetical me(anyone) in this scenario. I am going to tackle this with a thought experiment and I will also post this from the perspective of my actual self and my hypothetical self(anyone). Moral - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character[1]Morality - a doctrine or system of moral conduct [2] "The term “morality” can be used either(1)descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or(a)some other group, such as a religion, or(b)accepted by an individual for her own behavior or(2)normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons"[3]So reviewing the resolution, this is a comparative debate. " You are more moral than the Abrahamic God"The OP intended for you to mean anyone in this. Saying whomever accepted this debate is more moral than this God. So the next logical process is to assume that anyone in the world is more moral than this God. So there are two ways in which I can tackel this debate(a) My hypothetical self (anyone) is more moral than the Abrahamic God(b) I (myself) am more moral than the Abrahamic GodSince I am con in this debate, it is my job to show that I am not more moral than the Abramahic God or that the Abrahamic God is more moral than most people. Actually even If I can just show that the Abrahamic God is just as moral as me I also win this debate. Pro only wins if I am in fact more moral than God. Before I get into contentions lets look at whom and what the Abrahamic God is. Abrahamic God - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. [4]Note : We are comparing (myself) or (anyone) to the God of all these religionsHow to gauge what is moralFirst we have to determine whether or not morality is objective or subjective. There are a great many ways to go at this. If morality is objective there has to be a way to determine. Most Christians use God as that gauge. Everything that God commands is moral, everything that he says is wrong is immoral. My adversary never set an outline on what is moral and what is not moral, so I am going to do it for him. The options that are avaible to us(a) Subjective MoralityEverything is subjective. What is moral in society (a) may not be moral in society (b). When you compare world cultures, each has a different sense of what morality is and it is completely relative depending on what and whom you ask. (b) Objective morality in the sense of a GodGod is the gauge for that and his commands determine what is moral and immoral(c) Veil of Ignorance. This is a thought experiment that some philosophers use to determine objective morality without a God. " The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons." [5] Comparing Anyone To God. This is pretty easy to do. Let's look at some of my adversaries claims. (1) Not responding to pain. My adversary claims that because God is aware of all the pain in the world, him choosing not to respond to it is immoral. The error with this is that if we are using religion to determine what is moral. The suffering someone is going through could be for a reason. If we are looking at it from a subjective standpoint, not responding to the suffering could be perfectly moral to begin with. Even if we tackle it from the perspective of a rational society and say that we are obligated to respond to pain God is just as immoral as someone who does not donate money to third world countries. To break this down further(a) If God himself is the objective measure of morality. Him allowing people to suffer is not immoral. God commands what is immoral and people suffering are in his plan. (b) If morality is subjective. No one is obligated to respond to suffering. So God would not be more moral or less moral than anyone whom chooses to or not to help people whom are suffering. (c) Even if we use the veil of ignorance. The suffering of one is just as important as the suffering of many. Basically If God chooses to let people suffer, and (I) or (anyone) chose not to donate money to people whom are suffering or at least try and help them we are just as immoral as God which negates the resolutionMost people are just as immoral as God, because they do the same things he does. If we are comparing people to God. They kill, chose to ignore starving people, and are all greedy. Since there are limited ways to gauge whom is more moral than the others, even when we break it down from the 3 ways in which I described earlier. There are some people whom are just as immoral as God. Therefore someone whom took this debate, could be just as immoral as God. MyselfI have never given money to an overseas charity. I never would go oveseas to help people. Depending on my money siutation, half the time I am entirely focused on myself. I once broke a kids arm because he pushed me. I snapped another guys leg because he grabbed my friends azz. I cuss, I use to drink, and I use to smoke. I have sex before marriage and I am happy about it. In america today most people would probabbly think I was and could still be a heathen. In some perspetives I am just as immoral as God. I openly chose to ignore the suffering of others, because I want to focus on the suffering of myself first. I chose to take care of myself and my family, instead of focusing on others first. Therefore per comparing morality. I am just as immoral as GodI do not posses a higher degree of morality than him. Therefore this resoultion is negatedConclusion. Due to morality being defined in so many different ways, and possibly even being subjective. There is no way to defend this resoultion. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] http://www.pbs.org...[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...