God is a cruel, immoral and unjust figure.

Thank you for QandA's excellent speech. Now it's my turn :) I actually laughed at my luck when I saw you arguing at the fire extinguishing situation. When I was thinking of a situation to type in for good morality, I suddenly had an idea. How about letting my opponent to bring out a counter-argument that I can use to counter-counter-attack so that he has no point of opposing his own stance? Sounds good :D. So I put up a very obvious situation of fire extinguishing for an easy fightback. And btw my third round will be chained arguments to oppose your only but strong point left, which is the stance that both existences of both moral and immoral acts might show how psycho god might be. Before that, I"ll strengthen my position of existence of moral acts by my third point soon. I purposely put on a "decoy" to let my opponent step in (If he is not stepping in, then I have to uncover myself, which is embarrassing), which is the fire extinguishing situation. If you notice, I can state a fire not caused by god, because humans are given a proportion of free will enough to do what they want, including making up a fire, intentionally or unintentionally(pollution) due to limited knowledge. For the reason why we might do evil, it is not due to god but because we have limited knowledge, and if we have perfect knowledge, we would be gods. Okay and the trap I am putting you in is actually my third point, proving moral and immoral acts are equally balanced. [3] IQ question: how many times more do you open your eyes as compared to closing them in your entire life? Answer: It depends on if you are going to close your eyes when you die. Well, do some math. You can only open your eyes once you closed it. If you are going to close your eyes when you die, then you will be having exactly the same number of times opening and closing your eyes. If you die opening them, then you have one more time of opening your eyes. Ok now what does this have to do with morality of god? Well the logic of god doing good and bad acts is exactly the same!! During the big bang or something preceding it, god gave us existence. It is just like us opening our eyes. God give us life and also ends them. God gave happiness and also sadness. By this logic, suffering is only the end of happiness, and hence means there can be no more suffering than happiness in the world, because everything must have its duality of good and bad to exist, and hence the point GOD IS NEUTRAL. This is also why a fire is caused before it is extinguished, and also a bigger issue that god can only take away your life after giving you it, which is also counter-argument to disasters situation you and I mentioned. And then you could argue on two points, the absolute power of god on every rule and time feature of suffering/gaining . (See, I'm so good I even help you to think out points to counter-attack me...okay it's just my tactic haha.) I"ll explain both points. (A)God is all-powerful and all-knowing, it can simply make a rule that good does not need to be accompanied by bad. So what is the purpose of bad existing? Well, this is also the point of god possibly doing it for amusement. (B)Although the times for suffering is counted equal to the times of happiness, the time period for both are not seen to be equal in everyone. Example: Suffering of poor people is longer than rich people despite who is much more moral. Now, in my following chain attack, I"ll simply use my wild card to kick off the two points I just proposed which include the one strong point my opponent has, the psycho god. [4] The argument of existence of rules. God does not see how to keep the universe running as the way we see. It does not think about short-term outcomes, it "thinks" about the infinite outcomes that would follow once it makes a rule. God is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing by definition, but since it is so powerful, it is constrained by its own rules once it makes it. For instance, god cannot both at the same time create a rule that we exist and we don"t exist, which are contradictions. (Umm okay I just denied the absolute powerfulness of god by this contradiction saying, but it is logical.) God could not intervene in our world after it created all the rules, because its own rules do not allow it to do so. Why? Because it needs to protect the existence of law of causality, which is everything we think we know now. In turn, god cannot simply raise its "hand" and slap a bad guy to death, because science does now allow such things to happen at all. If this ever happens, science is rejected and all our knowledge will turn into dust, because god can simply change anything, hence telling us that we cannot believe in anything happening around. But why not simply let us know god is there and tell the bad guys that god is watching? Well then what would happen? We won"t learn a thing about morality because immoral acts are not even allowed to exist, we cannot gain wisdom from such a world. God purpose is for us to grow and develop, for us to know both the correct side and bad side. Hence, it prioritizes the law of causality towards doing moral acts, which simply shows god is a guy who wants appraisal more than teaching us. So, how does this point reject all points my opponent has? 1. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so although it is constrained by its own created rules, it is not included in the rules itself. First, god created emotion. So god cannot possibly have pure boring emotion to find for amusement. This means god will either have absolutely no emotion, or it has all of them at once, making it neutral. This reject the possibility god is playing us for fun (fun is something it created for us.), and also at least weaken my opponent"s point that god can be purely immoral. 2. Although now we say that god cannot intervene when the universe is running because it would cause chaos, god could in the first place create good without any bad. But then this would cause contradiction in the rules. When god created existence out of non-existence, it also created duality, everything it created must have the other side. In order for it to maintain the rules, so that we have confidence to percept things using these logic, it chose to not intervene in the world anymore. God simply creates every quality it knows and put them in the world so that we could learn from them and grow to be a better person, which is a longer term purpose of god in making the universe a better place. 3. Time for suffering is too much long. Well the fact that god could not intervene halfway is enough to push off this point, but I"ll try adding points to say that things happening in our life is equal and balanced in good and bad. Time is an illusion, god created it. But it still applies that suffering for someone seems unfairly long. God created a law to protect this to make sure suffering can become equally the same to happiness as well. The law of conversation of energy. Well, it might seems too much to apply a physics law on souls and spiritual things we do not know exist or not yet, but nearly all religions say the same here, so i think it is possible to use this point. The existence of afterlife, or rather more logically accepted we do not get destroyed at all after death due to the law of conversation of energy. Where we go after death, we still don"t know. But different religions have different saying. For bible, umm I never read it so I think it is about heaven and hell. The wrong ones go to hell, the good ones go to heaven. This protects what you said the bad guys did not get punishments. You have to agree to it unless you throw away almost half of your points that you assume bible to be correct without flaw. To add, Buddhism also states the existence of afterlife. Okay god I"ve typed so much I have almost no characters left! Hope i did not say something nonsense lol.