god has no moral compass

"Having done a quick perusal of your initial arguments," And I will do the same for you and will only do a flyby of what you have stated. "I believe that your contention is slightly flawed." Well 1. I didn"t state it. The Dossier of Reason did. 2. It shows god"s complete immorality. 3. Since you only have done a "quick perusal" how can you judge correctly? 4. "For one, The Christian god seems to be"" Well you nor anyone can prove that the christian god even exists. 5. much less "an Aristotelian "unmoved mover."" Is completely false. "I believe" Well at least you had the nerve to say that. Because that"s not a 100% proven then. "God to be an "unmoved mover" by using scriptures found in the Bible." Well that"s totally false. This is taken from the secular web" https://infidels.org... GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god. EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire. EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god. LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing. NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce. 2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it." EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him." 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love. GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Your god "moves" all---the---time. But then again, you cannot even prove that this god of "yours" even exists. "There are a few passages/verses in the Bible that support this idea:" But if you prove that, then that would be a contradiction. And there are a good thousand or more contradictions and inconsistencies in your bible proving it to be unreadable. Now I have no idea as to what version of the bible you are reading, but it is a clear abomination without question. Isaiah 45:7 is a perfect example I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. The KJV reads "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Notice that one word "evil" that the version you read backs off from and I"d be willing to bet that when it comes to the nitty gritty and or the really sick and perverted parts, especially from what your god did in your bible, that the version you read, it backs away from those sick and disgusting verses making the words in them a lot less vile, perverted and hateful, especially towards children as your god does quite literally hate children. It is also pinpoint obvious right here, right now, absolute and solid proof as to why your god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. I mean how does someone, well actually any blithering idiot translate the words "disaster" from "evil"? The two words have 0% to do with each other. Another form is "1 Colossians 1:15-17" does not exist in the KJV. It also does not exist in the NLT. Only in Colossians 1:15-17 does it exist. Unless you made a mistake and put the "1" there by accident which is perfectly OK. Hell, you should see some of the mistakes I make! Wow! But we are going to skip christ all together as he was a false prophet, completely untrue, worthless gibberish, has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate, its god only, regardless, and trust me you do NOT want to get into the losing end of christ. "God, through an individual, created everything that is possible for humans to observe and even the things that human's can't observe. Nothing exists that is not the work of God." What a boring little unproved story. You MUST prove the validity of YOUR god in order for it to be true. Why would I "want" to think your unproved god is love, when this god of yours in his sketched up marking pad proves he"s a terrorist? Math? Sure? Stephen Hawking, perhaps the smartest man who has ever lived, and his colleague have come up with a mathematical equation that proves something does come from nothing. In other words, your god was not needed to have created the known universe.2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. Your god can be disproved no matter which language you speak. The Maya also came up with the number 0. Nothing. You cannot think of nothing no matter how hard you try. "...inherent aspects of God." Which god? And how do you test for this god of YOURS only? How do you demonstrate this god of YOURS only? then it certainly lends some Then you use the word "transcendent". But what does it mean if you cannot prove anything exists? "If there are"" Stop right there. You use the that all high and mighty word "if". Why not keep it at that because you don"t know anything at all especially about "transcendent objects," and to say "then we would need to ask the question, are these objects un-caused or do they also have a cause?" But how would you know if you cannot test or demonstrate their existence? "If they are indeed caused, then we would need to figure out the origin of that cause." But you don"t know. Its like you are attempting to plug in a light bulb from here in Orlando, scum sucking leech center of the world and then wiring to Shanghai, expecting it to turn on without any supervision when you click on that switch. "And if"" there you go again with that "if". SO WHAT? OK this has 0% to do with "god has no moral compass". Wow. I can't even ask this question "Would you like more to prove YOUR god is a "mover"? Because you asked... "My friend, what standard are you even pointing to when you cast this judgement?" Never mind. That right there proves that you do not have a moral compass. This debate is now over.