if the Abrahamic god exists, that being is evil.

Alrighty, now for a conclusion :D The bulk of Pro's argument consists of criticisms of supposedly 'immoral' actions committed by God, as recorded in the Abrahamic Scriptures. It should be noted much of these attacks reflect a severely misguided reading of the Bible, the most blatant examples of which are the following: Pro compares God's punishment on the wicked in Noah's day to eugenics. I fear my rebuttal, and particularly my claim that this would be akin to comparing the death penalty to eugenics, was not properly addressed, if at all. The initial argument is simply repeated: God destroyed them because they were 'undesirable', which is absurd, since we know from the Scriptures that God desires all men to come to repentance, as stated in Ezekiel 18:32 'For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!' Pro asserts that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah amounts to genocide. He provides a useful definition; "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". There is no indication in the Biblical text that these two cities constituted either of these groups. In fact, like pretty much all great cities of a time, they probably sheltered a myriad of races, religions, and ethnic groups. As for the 'national', Sodom and Gomorrah were no more nations than Paris and London are. Pro accuses God of toying with a poor old man, Moses, who was forced to keep his arms up during a battle. Aside from calling Moses a wimp, he forgets that Aaron and Hur helped him keep his arms in the air (Exodus 17:8-16) Job is essentially an allegorical text about the Problem of Evil. The style makes it quite obvious (long, poetic tirades etc), so no Geneva Conventions here, thanks. Regarding Adam an Eve, I wonder what makes Pro think that they didn't know 'the implications of death'? Were they that stupid to fail to realize that autoproclaming yourself as God is a rebellion against God? I doubt it. As for placing the tree in the garden, it was about as immoral as building a house and including an exit. It couldn't possibly have been a trap: as we have said, Adam and Eve were fully aware of the consequences (which, by the way, is why the image provided by Pro is flawed, because a child, unlike Adam and Eve, is unconscious of danger). But once again, a truly righteous God could not force his creatures to stay with him. Moreover, Pro makes the interesting assertion that because God did not create humans equal to him, he is immoral. I'd point out that virtually everything we make is inferior to us...and no one drags us to court for this. More importantly, I'm sure Pro agrees that God creating someone equal to him in every way would mean creating another God. Any theology student who quickly remind Pro that God is by definition uncreated..and it follows that creating another God is a logical impossibility. 'Hard to blame anyone from failing to be logical... In any case, Bible verses set aside, I strongly suspect that Pro has not taken the central assumption of this debate—that the biblical God exists--seriously enough. As I have demonstrated in my first post, in the biblical worldview (and, I'd argue, in any worldview) God cannot possibly be evil, because evil is simply defined as going against his Nature (which is Love, in Christianity). And Pro's contention that good and evil can be discerned by the “judgment of the people” is simply untenable, because the 'people' in question, unlike God, are not the Game-Makers of the 'Game of Life', (see my first post). Granted, they can establish laws to govern societies. But these are and remain subjective, since they depend on the society. This is certainly NOT the 'good' and 'evil' Pro was thinking about, which I have assumed to be objective since he hasn't stated otherwise (see his definitions, they make no mention of cultural norms). Had we considered God as a character from literature (as Pro does himself, I suppose), Pro's case wouldn't have been as desperate. Though the accusations he brings have been dealt with hundreds of times by theologians of every breed, he would at least have a right to state an opinion against a fictitious character. But in this debate, he agreed to set aside his atheism and pretend to be a believer. And the existence of God precludes God's immorality. Morality: before you start a debate; always make sure you double check your assumptions, or they will stab you in the back. Peace, Koheleth (and now, back to revising for genetics -_-)