The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

The Garden of EdenI specified, as my opponent may want to reexamine, that the presence of Cain's wife indicates one of two things; either there were humans outside the Garden that were unrelated to Adam and Eve, or Cain married his [younger] sister. I did not explicitly state that they had no daughters. I wouldn't particularly enjoy the image of Cain marrying his sisters, but that's just me, I suppose.I am not sure why my opponent is including the reason for Cain's banishment in this debate. To my knowledge it is not at question.My opponent is using logic now that seems quite broken to me. He has stated that God is omniscient. He has also stated that God deliberately creates people (I think it's Isaiah that specifies this). He has also stated that God gives free will to all. Now, allow me to examine the logic here, and present why I find it flawed:P1: God designs all people (including angels).P2: God is omniscient, meaning he is ultimately knowledgeable, regardless of time (knows the consequences of his actions before he does the actions).C: God knows exactly what all people will be like with every variation upon design, before he creates them.Now, this illustrates that people obviously do not have free will since, if God knows what someone will be like before he designs that person, then he knows what actions that design will bring about, ergo he is consciously designing their actions as he designs them. My opponent's Lego model is flawed because it implies that God is either omniscient or malevolent, as he would either know someone would step on the Legos and put them there anyway, meaning he would be malevolent, or he would not know someone would step on the Legos, meaning he would not be omniscient.My opponent has just made another assertion I don't follow; I stand accused of preferring God to have created another woman than Cain to have made a marriage of incest; my opponent has stated that God did indeed create his greatest enemy (which I have already proven means God must have been either malevolent or non-omniscient), and that God also created the temptation which was his creation's downfall; he has stated that God knew what would happen; I conclude that since God knew what would happen, created it with this knowledge, and yet still created it, God must have created it maliciously. That he created such an elaborate scheme for a salvation from a problem he created does not seem like an example either of benevolence or omnipotence to me.Noah's ArkMy opponent now is just creating straw men, or perhaps trying to turn my arguments into straw men. He has stated that it cannot be logically concluded that Noah persuaded God based on the quote I gave. He has also stated that other versions of the Bible omit the verse about Noah finding favor in the eyes of God. Regarding the former, God's attitude progresses from a resolution to destroy all life, all, from the planet to destroying all but Noah and his ark, and it adds at the end of this, seemingly as an explanation, that Noah found favor in God's eyes. I do not see anything illogical about the assumption that Noah's favor in God's eyes is the cause of God's change of plans. Regarding the latter, I would be very interested to know to what versions my opponent is referring, because in my collection of Bibles, both modern and antique, I have yet to find an example of that passage being omitted. If desired I shall provide citations.We are not operating under the assumption that the Bible is true, we are operating under the assumption that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God's character.Now, my good opponent, you are openly contradicting yourself. If God knew beforehand that no one would accept his warning, then presenting a warning would be wasteful. It would have been a better example of benevolence for God to instead offer a warning that people would believe. As for the size of the ark, my opponent may be mentally exaggerating this. The ark was actually quite small, smaller than many private craft. Maybe about the size of a yacht. For four adults with carpentry skills to build such a boat would really take comparatively little time if they had nothing else to do and were dedicated to the project.My opponent has yet to establish that people were all concentrated in one spot. All non-Biblical evidence speaks strictly to the contrary, that at the alleged time of the Great Flood, some four-thousand years ago, if I remember correctly, humans were living on every continent. I cannot imagine any place on the planet that Noah could go that would successfully be visible to every continent (excepting Antarctica, naturally). This argument stands like a great pillar of marble, as of now.JobI'm glad to hear that my opponent is familiar with Adolph Hitler; it saves me the necessity of explaining his actions further. I will simply assume that he knows, and if he does not, he will be responsible for addressing his own currency of knowledge.My opponent states that God made Lucifer with the knowledge of what Lucifer would do. If God knew what every possible variation on Lucifer would be like, then it is obvious that, in choosing the one he did, he instantly took from Lucifer free will, as the actions of the Lucifer he created were predetermined, and effectively it would mean God was designing Lucifer both to love him for the time that he did, and to betray him. My opponent's own argument proves that if God exists, either he is not as my opponent describes, or freedom is an illusion.Regarding children, do not bring my children into this. I have created no child with the knowledge of exactly what it would be before I created it, I did not choose a 'template' for what that child's life would be, and I did not force it to assume an identity that I was predeterminedly aware of before I created it. That is a totally irrelevant analogy.My opponent has addressed none of my points about Job, and instead attacked my religious beliefs, my family values, and idly speculated about God's motivations before conceding that he does not know why God would allow Job to endure such a situation. Finally, he states that God knows everything, reinforcing my point that either God is not all-powerful, or not benevolent.Sodom and GomorrahI did not assume that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies, I made a joke. There is no more evidence to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies than there is to suggest they wanted to rape people. Yes, they did stand outside of Lot's house and demand sex. But as they did not get their wish, they weren't given any opportunity to demonstrate whether they intended it to be consensual or otherwise. That Lot insisted they stay the night with him is not necessarily an act of protection. My opponent may not be highly familiar with Middle Eastern culture: allow me to enlighten him a bit. It is customary for Arabs (and Hebrews) to offer hospitality to travelers. Lot's offer of hospitality could as easily have been habitual as it could have been out of concern for the traveler's safety. Being such an ambiguous passage, that really is hard to address. However, Lot's motives aren't at question. God still destroyed two cities, regardless of innocents.Oho, and now we have evangelism. I asked you not to do that.ConclusionMy dear fellow, history is written by the victors! At his rein, Hitler also declared that he had a perfect standard, that he knew if men were beyond hope, and he did promise a utopia to those who followed him. And did I just hear "God doesn't discriminate by race?" surely I did not hear that. My opponent finishes with "God...is a holy, perfect, and just God." Can you support this of a God who, as I have established without rebuttal, has committed multiple cases of genocide, a term which my opponent has kindly defined for us? Saying that he was justified because he was killing those that deserved it to create a utopia is describing Adolph Hitler.Your move.