The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral

Thanks for the response Pro.Pro has to show that this alleged creator of the universe and source of all moral authority, as referenced in the KJV bible, is entirely moral, but Pro doesn't think that god's existence is relevant.*REBUTTAL-EXISTENCE*Pro decides to tickle himself and entertain the idea that god's existence might be relevant in a discussion about whether or not god is purely moral...smart move.Pro posits:"Con claims there were quantum fluctuations and stuff...Could this not be a creator?"My response:Nope.Creators necessarily precede their creations and precedence requires stative time and the passage thereof, but, when there was no universe, in a quantum fluctuation, there was no stative time for precedence or the concept of "before."So, without stative time, which is a property of the universe, there could not have been creation.Pro inquires:"But if there was no universe and no scale of space then how did everything come from a single point?"My response:From unstable quantum fluctuations, matter was able to be stative by avoiding annihilation, and this allowed for stative space.Space at this point was extremely small, like the size of a stative sub nuclear particle, such that the very small amount of stative matter that existed was proportionally massive to such small space...imagine matter that could take up the entirety of space; it would certainly be massively powerful, dense, and hot.There's the big bang.Pro concludes:"It couldn't have [come from a single point] because space didn't exist either."My response:Once there was stative matter, there was stative space, so, at the point of the big bang, stative space did in fact exist.Pro contends:"[http://physics.aps.org...] is useless as it is a source that doesn't back up your point."My response:I used it to back up the point that QF exist and have an effect on a macro physics scale...it did that quite nicely, and I invite all readers to check it out...very simple read.Pro furthers:"And it did require energy because for the experiment to take place they needed to fire a lazer."My response:The laser was used to cool the patterned silicon nanomechanical beam down, and this has to be done in our current universe of matter and space in order to reach a zero energy state.It takes massive energy to get to nothing or zero energy in our world, but, when there was no universe, zero stative energy and zero stative space was the condition, so no added energy would be necessary.*CREATION IS TEMPORAL*Please remember that creators use the process of creation, which itself is a temporal concept that requires STATIVE time and the passage thereof in order to allow the series of events involving a creator existing-->creating-->created product.Without stative time, how can you discern a creator from its created product?How can you have a series of events in the process of creation without stative time?The universe therefore could not have been created without stative time, which was the condition without a universe. *REBUTTAL-PURELY MORAL*1. I mentioned that the KJV says god created ALL things, and Pro admits:"He probably did."2. I mentioned that the KJV says god knows the future and it's what he wants to happen and Pro responds:"[god] didn't want Eve and Adam to bite one of the fruits from the tree of knowledge...he doesn't want any negative thing to happen."My response:So, Pro, is Isaiah 46:10 incorrect that god said, "Declaring the end from the beginning...and from ancient times the things that are not yet done...my counsel shall stand?"If god declared the end from the beginning, and his council shall stand, then is Eve and Adam biting the fruits part of his council that shall stand?Did god declare from the beginning that Eve and Adam would bite the fruits?Or are there things that happen that are not a part of what god declared from the beginning/his council?3. I mentioned that according to the KJV, god knows everything you think and do and Pro admits:"Indeed"4. I had mentioned that the KJV claims that god can even put his will into others and Pro admits:He can, but "Jesus is asking for the strength and willpower to go through with it. This is willing, the Father isn't forcing Jesus. Jesus made the choice in this moment."My response:Then why did Jesus say "not what I will, but what thou wilt" referring to god as "thou?"If it's not what Jesus willed and it is what god willed, then how did Jesus make the choice, especially since Pro has admitted that god CAN impose his will on others?5. I mentioned that the KJV says that god created evil, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" and Pro responds:"He created free will. Free will brought along sin. And again you are incorrectly using a verse. It also means something completely independent."My response:Pro admits here that sin, which is evil, was brought by free will and that god created free will.Grouping this idea with Pro's conceded points that god created all things AND declared the end from the beginning, god knowingly created free will with the foreknowledge that evil would spawn, such that god is responsible for creating evil.He knew evil would come from free will, yet he created it anyway, and the bible clearly says that "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."I argue it is immoral to create evil, and, in fact, god could have declared a future with free will and no evil, but chose not to have that future...god wanted evil so badly that he had to create it and have humans act on it...sounds immoral to me.Could god have created free will without allowing evil?Or is that something that god just can't do?6. I had mentioned that god endorses owning other humans as property AND the unpunished abuse of other humans BECAUSE they are possessions, and Pro responds:"The bible says what is going on. God doesn't encourage it. Where does it say this? And again free will."My response:Exodus 21:20 and Exodus 21:21.God clearly says "if a man strikes his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and...[the servant] continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his property"So, god allows for owning other humans as property and beating, as long as they don't die, should go unpunished BECAUSE those humans are property.Pro, is owning other humans as property moral?Pro, is letting the physical abuse of another human considered to be property, as long as they don't die, moral?Well, god told us that those are the rules for owning other humans as property.You know what a moral rule would be?No owning other humans as property or unpunished beatings of humans because they are your property!Come on Pro, god said that this abuse should go UNPUNISHED...is that moral to you?Pro hangs on:"If they were beaten within an inch of their life they wouldn't recover in a day or two."My response:God clearly states, "if [the human property] continues a day or two, [the owner of the human property] shall not be punished."There's no mention of recovery, only continuing to live for two days.One could be beaten within an inch of their life and remain in a coma for 4 days and this would go unpunished per the rules god has declared.How is this moral Pro?Pro then asks:"Where does it say this was his plan?"My response:Isaiah 46:10"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."From the beginning to the end, his council shall stand, so given his rules for beating humans and owning them, and the fact that he's already declared what will happen (it is his council after all) is indicative of his plan:1. create evil2. allow the owning of humans as property3. allow the abuse of humans to go unpunished*REBUTTAL-PRO'S ANSWERS*I had asked Pro if god made us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds, and Pro responds:"he simply didn't give us the ability."My response:Right, why then could god just simply NOT have given us the ability to commit evil AND maintain our free will?Pro, can you exercise your free will to read others' minds?No, but you still have free will, it's just limited to freedoms aside from reading others' minds.So, if god can limit our free will to read others' minds AND we can still maintain free will, then why couldn't god just limit our free will to commit evil AND have us maintain free will?Is it that he couldn't do that?Pro responds ineffectively:"Couldn't? Tis simply didn't."My response:So, Pro admits that god *could* have given us free will WITHOUT the capacity to commit evil and simply didn't, which speaks to an immoral creator of evil who planned to have humans commit evil within their free will, so that humans can physically beat other humans whom they are encouraged to own as property without any objection from god.This god is disgustingly immoral, which negates this particular resolution.