(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

My opponent's rebuttals are in bold. II. There is no Good Without Evil Your argument assumes God exists in the first place. This begs the question who created God? Since a creator inherently must be more complex than the creation this leads to the problem of infinite regressions. Speaking from a purely fictional stand point, that we can judge the characters in the Harry Potter series, I think humans will always have something to struggle against. Whether it be faith, hunger, disease, hatred, etc. I have no problem with a fictional God creating the basics like disease and hunger. Yet, adding more to people's burden who are already struggling seems immoral. Let's take for example organized crime. The same argument by Wholock could be used for the mafia. That the mafia creates evil, thus they are good by giving people something to struggle against. The problem is the everyday citizen has a lot to struggle against already. There is plenty of hero's calls without organized crime. I certainty wouldn't call the mafia good by any means, nor would I call a psychopathic killer moral. In brief, I wouldn't judge a fictional God for creating Satan, I would judge a fictional God for killing more people than Satan. First off I would like to point out that we have to assume God is real, because, let's say using the Harry Potter world as you have previously mentioned, Voldemort killed 1,929 people, we can verify that Voldemort killed exactly 1,928 people, unless he killed any more that we are unaware of or was framed, but since the number is so high, only the gist of it really matters. On the other hand, if we assumed God was fake then we are unsure if Moses went off people for fun, or if he had a 'vision' and believed it was some higher power telling him what to do. So since the lines blur between fiction and reality, we must assume God is real. Next, I would like to point out that you didn't mention murder as one of the things that it is okay for God to allow. The problem is, without murder, our most basic human instincts of survival would have been taken away and we never would have made it past being cave men. For example, if their are two men, who are going to die if they don't get a lot of food to eat immediately, and they stumble upon a baby chicken what are they going to do? First thing they are not going to do is let the chicken keep on going because it would be evil to kill it. Second thing they are going to do is split it. If they did, they'd both die and we'd never have evolution, nor would we be here today as we would have gone extinct as we would have no instinct for survival. It is in our blood to kill. Unless you're a vegetarian, you don't condemn killing as you're eating slaughtered animals all the time. Onto where you mention the mafia, it is one thing to be the Mafia and another to let the Mafia do what they are doing for the advancement of human progress. Back to the Harry Potter analogy, in the magical world many purebloods hated muggles and all things to do with them. The rest of society is too lazy to fix it, and without a little incentive, they wouldn't have anywhere. That's why the affect of the Wizarding Wars were good even if the killers behind them were not. You agreed that God giving people hate is justified, and people aren't just going to sit there hating, they're going to do something about it. That's why we have murder, because there are very few serial killers out there. Most people justify their actions somehow. Hell, Hitler thought he was the greatest man ever born, morally and in every other way. III. Treat everyone equally There are three major problems with this. First, assuming God exists, without God your enemies could take advantage of you. The best example I can of having too much trust is pedophile priests. "Confessions of Priest Who Molested 17 Boys Released" [9] Second, even if God exists, it is self evident that God doesn't always intevene on the behalf of the innocent. [9] Third, there are many Bible verses that state the exact opposite. " 2 Corinthians 6:14King James Version (KJV) 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? " [10] "Nehemiah 13:3 "Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." " [11] First off, I have shown earlier why we must assume that God is real for this debate. Second, if God always intervened on the behalf of the innocent there would be no evil, and therefore no good, as I have shown in my earlier arguments. Third, both your quotes do not show God showing inequality. Your first quote is a warning from God not to marry someone who doesn't believe in God because your relationship will be difficult. It's not a command or suggestive that people who don't believe in God are below those that do, just a warning that pursuing such a relationship my be difficult. [1] "IV. The Ten Commandments" Wholock I'll agree that the commandments my opponent mentioned are worth following. Yet, there is atheistic or objective morality. Rats and chickens have empathy. "Empathetic Rats Help Each Other Out" [12] "Domestic chickens display signs of empathy, the ability to 'feel another's pain' that is at the heart of compassion, a study has found. [13] Religion has stolen credit where science and philosophy should receive the credit. That humans are altruistic via evolution and can develop morals just fine without God giving out ten commandments. I agree that many people can develop morality without the Bible, but there are also many people who's have grown better morally due to the ten commandments. Plus, people obviously needed moral guidance at the time if God had to tell them not to murder or steal. V. Forgiveness Here, it is stated that God has forgiven much of mankind for their sins. Therefore, since God has forgiven mankind for our sins, even though God wasn't required God is kind and benevolent. In addition, God advocates the important trait of forgiveness, which leads to a more peaceful world as no one is trying to find revenge on others." Wholock The problem with forgiveness, is sometimes it is best not to forgive. That a person would repeat an immoral action until someone else intervenes. This is true of immoral self-rewarding behavior. That forgiving the person will only make the problem worse in this scenario. Otherwise, it is usually best to be forgiving. Yet, as seen in the previous section rats and chickens possess empathy, we do not need God to reiterate what we would have most likely already have done. Your argument that it is sometimes better no to forgive contradicts the fact that sinners shouldn't be punished. If someone did something totally awful they should be punished for it and then you should be over it. Here, God is just advocating forgiveness and that we try to forgive each other and not ruin a relationship based on a small argument. Some rats and chickens in lab cages can develop empathy and forgiveness, sure, but these rats are put in an environment where they are meant to learn empathy. In addition, it is only a minority of the human population that doesn't posses these traits, even though it turns out to be a large amount since even 1/100 of the human population is huge. So, when 1/100 rats doesn't develop empathy, they say that the majority of rats can develop empathy without God, so obviously rats don't need God to develop empathy. However, here we are catering to the minority as it is the minority that needs to learn how to forgive. If 1/100 of the human population didn't have empathy, it would be disastrous. Some people need a motive, and God can be their motive to develop empathy and forgiveness. For all these reasons and more I strongly urge a con ballot. Thank you.