All Religious Bloodshed is Righteous if God Exists

That you for such interesting arguments. I do not hold the burden of proof however I will make some quick arguments that I think I need to raise before moving on to my rebuttals. With that I’ll begin with the arguments. Arguments I will focus this argument on the condonment of righteousness. P1: God exists (we have agreed to assume this in R1) P2: We do not know which religion this God belongs to. P3: Some religions say that bloodshed is wrong, even in the name of God. C1: If God exists and belongs to a religion that believes that all bloodshed is wrong even in the name of God, then my opponent’s burden cannot be fulfilled. P4: My opponent must prove that all religious bloodshed is righteous if God exists. P5: The resolution does not say if a certain God exists, it says if God exists. C2: It is possible that religious bloodshed in the name of God is wrong even if God exists. C3: My opponent cannot fulfill their burden because he does not know which God this will be and he needs to show it for all religions that believe in a God that coincides with this definition. P1 is agreed upon in the R1 set up. P2 is a truism. P3 is a truism. In Christianity Jesus famously said, “live by the sword, die by the sword” [1], implying strongly that those who live violent lives will die violent deaths. This is clearly a promotion against all violence in general. Jews believe that nonviolence is the only way of living a life of truth, justice and peace [2]. Other religions have similar beliefs but these are two main ones. C1 is proven primarily by P3. Many religions condone violence heavily. Ergo, violence in the name of those religions are wrong even under the rules of said religion. P4 is a truism - the burdens and the resolution reinforces this. P5 is a truism as the resolution says this. C2 is proven by C1, P4 and P5. C3 is proven by P3, C1, P4 and P5 (as well as the other premises playing a minor role). My opponent’s burden cannot be fulfilled as a result. Rebuttals MP1 - I disagree with this premise. God has been willing. He is certainly able to under the definition but I disagree that he is willing. Judaism states very clearly that God only intervened to spread his will and his commandments. Once the message of Judaism was sent he never intervened again [3]. The same applies to Christianity. They believe in the same things as Jews (in the old testament and they also believe that Jesus came down to also spread the word of God and his teachings. However Jesus in Christianity came down for a vital reason - to eliminate original sin. God is only willing to intervene when absolutely necessary in Christianity [4]. If we look at Hinduism (which coincides with the definition because there is one God that is represented in many forms - not many Gods) [5]. In Hinduism you are solely responsible for your actions and your Karma effects that. God does not intervene at all in Hinduism whilst you are alive. Only once you die God intervenes and decides and weighs your karma to determine your next life [6]. The system of karma is in place to punish those that do wrong. My opponent’s elaboration of this premise proves that he can do this and it proves that he has but it does not prove that he is willing to at this point in time. MP2 - I agree with this premise. MP3 - This is a massive jumping of conclusions. Let me present the following analogy. If I believe that stealing is wrong and it is proven true then this belief is righteous. I don’t then go killing or murdering everybody that disagrees. Just because a certain belief system is proven to be righteous, it doesn’t mean that you are then allowed to kill and cause terror in the name of that belief. As proven in the initial arguments presented above, many of the religions that believe in a God that falls under my opponent’s definition also believe in nonviolence and pacifism. Most notably, Christianity and Judaism (two of the biggest religions). My opponent provides virtually no justification for this premise. MP4 - I also agree. MP5 - I agree here too MP6 - This is true, he could, however as proven already, many religions believe that God only involves himself when absolutely necessary (ie. to spread the word of his existence or to eliminate original sin). MP7 - I agree. MP8 - I don’t entirely agree here. Free will could be one reason but there are also many other options. This world might be a test (as Islam states). It would ruin the system of heaven and hell. Satan often plays a role too. So free will certainly isn’t the only reason why God doesn’t just change everybody to be good. MP9 - I’ll begin by quickly reminding my opponent that they need to correct the formal logic regarding this contention. Now I’ll get onto my rebuttal for it. My opponent’s justification for this premise is weak. It is important to note that God has only ever intervened when it is necessary. For example, he begins by appearing to spread the word of his existence. He then (according to Christianity) appeared so that people could get to heaven because before Jesus came there was no way that people could go to heaven. It was impossible [4]. View my rebuttal on premise 1 for further rebuttal. Before the bridge was built people could not unite with God. Instead they went to hell (ie. fell down the hole as the metaphorical picture shows). Going back to the example of Hinduism. God is not willing to intervene in Hinduism and it is for free will related purposes. MP1 fails so this premise is unjustified. In addition to this, theistic satanists and general believers in Satan often also argue that it isn’t God that creates the evil. It is Satan. Some satanists even go as far as to say that Satan is God’s equal and is also omnipotent. Due to this evident contradiction neither of them can kill or eliminate each other. Therefore since some believers in God also believe in an omnipotent Satan this also means that evil can exist that God cannot prevent because otherwise there would be a universal paradox. The result of which could be detrimental. Two omnipotent beings both trying to create opposites. This is why there is good and bad. Satan’s presence and God’s. Conclusion I have provided my own argument and my rebuttals to the relevant premises. I thank my opponent once again for instigating this debate and I hand it back over t him for his rebuttals to my arguments and his counter rebuttals to my rebuttals. The resolution is affirmed, vote pro. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org...