If God does exist, he is evil. (Abrahamic god)

"Furthermore, if God is "unknowable", as you say, than it makes no sense to believe in him. Believing in something that you don't know exists, have no evidence of, and don't know anything about period is pointless and foolish."But this debate isn't about believing in God, is it? For the sake of this argument, it was agreed that God was assumedly real, yet you bring up His probable non-existence on more than one occassion. What you believe about God is absolutely irrelevant here."The mother's freewill is affected because her will is to break free, but she can't." You're confusing "free will" with "desire". "Free will" is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate". The situation here is more about desire (for lack of a better word): "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." (1, 2) By the free will logic, my free will is affected because my will is to have a million dollars, but I can't. Even if someone's in my way, they have nothing to do with my free will."So, do you refute the statements that God is these things: omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient? If so, he is useless, and if you don't believe these things about God then my argument is meaningless."That sounds like a forfeit. But hey, you said it, not me."If you believe God is just a lazy man in the sky who really doesn't care either way about jack squat, then he is just that..."I never said God was lazy or even implied it; I merely said that He was impartial and didn't show favoritism. Perhaps this isn't a perfect attribute, or even just a good attribute, but it's still a far cry from "evil", which was the only requirement for this debate."...but many theologians would refute that view of God, and the O,O,O,Os are values and traditions passed on from the early church, although not in the Islamic faith, so my argument is a bit more Christian view-attacking."Theologians can say whatever they want, but that isn't my point of attack. I'm sure a theologian could formulate an advanced Bible-based proof for God's goodness, but frankly, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not at that level of education on the subject. But I'm more than capable of proving God isn't an evil being. "You're assuming. This isn't true at all. It does not teach them WHY it's wrong, it only teaches them that if they do it again, they can expect to get a beating for it."If I'm assuming they'll learn their lesson, you're assuming that they're not. Works both ways. No point made, I suppose, on either side. Moving on."(Letting people burn in Hell) shows that God doesn't think things through, and that he goes off of pure emotion and hatred for the criminals instead of showing that he is a wise being, possibly the wisest being in existence."Why does God have to explain why rape is bad? Every philosopher and lawmaker over the years has insisted that, among things like murder and cannibalism, rape is one of those inherently immoral things. It doesn't take a supreme being to tell someone, "Rape is bad. Mmkay?""What about those who don't believe in God? They will perish then, right? They can commit the same actions as a theist, yet perish because they didn't buy into the idea of something that is illogical to start with (but that's another argument for another day). That is profoundly immoral, so that is evil."In what way is giving atheists exactly what they expect "profoundly immoral"? God is giving them exactly what they want. Atheists die with the confidence that nothing will come from their death, and they are right. That's a really beautiful thing, I think. God doesn't have to be the jerk who says, "I'm right, you're wrong, ha ha!" He's being the bigger man and letting exactly what they wanted to happen happen. I see nothing immoral about this at all."So than [sic] it is possible that God is just a useless, lazy being, unworthy of worship."Meh, possibly. Thank you for reiterating my point that nobody can be sure."Here are some Bible verses that constantly refer to God's plan..."You know what, I can give this point to you. Maybe God does have a plan. But, outside of His acts in the Bible (the potential miracles we both already established as simply hearsay), there is nothing today to suggest it."Yet again, miracles suggest he intervenes in freewill, whether they actually happened or not, they still suggest it."Reworded: "If miracles happened, it suggests He intervenes in free will. If miracles didn't happen, it suggest He intervenes in free will." That's a faulty conclusion."So there are some things outside of his plan that he doesn't want to happen? What use is he? He's not great and powerful as suggested by every holy book ever written about him and what is said by almost every believer."Again, this debate does not care for what use God is or what everyone says. It's strictly about, "Is God evil?" So far, you've been unable to provide proof that God isn't neutral, which is essentially what your debate is going to come down to."But you just said earlier that you don't know if God in fact could intervene, meaning that excessive good isn't a result of God if he can't intervene."First of all, I was simply showing the opposite side of your argument. If God allows evil, then you suggest He could also allow good. In that case, you're refuting yourself, showing that God is not completely evil, and thus shooting your argument in the foot. I intend to cite this later as a reason for your own doublethink in regards to God.In the other case, God is not, in fact, an interventionist. You're right, I don't know what God can and can't do."Tell me if he can or cannot."I would never say if He can or cannot. Would you?"So then he indirectly allows (unnecessary evils) because he allows us to have freewill in the first place."In the same way He, in this case, indirectly allows unnecessary goods. Again, with everything you cite as "allowing bad things to happen," it simply furthers the case for also allowing good things to happen, which suggests that God is not evil. You're proving yourself wrong."In your eyes, then, God is just a useless, lazy being in the sky who couldn't care less about what he creates? If you don't believe he intervenes in human lives and interacts with humans, what makes you believe he created them (assuming you're a theist)?"I refuse to divulge this information in this debate based simply on the fact that it is irrelevant in this debate. I'm only here to try and persuade you and the audience that God is not inherently evil. On that note, your side comments about how a lazy (your term for "neutral") God is not worth worshipping are totally unnecessary."My statement that God is evil is only applicable if the beliefs that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent are accepted."Then you should have stated that in the establishing round of this debate. You didn't, you merely claimed that an Abrahamic God is evil and that you would attempt to prove so. So far, you have been unable to show the burden of proof that He is not O, O, O, O. On that note..."Is he a being with a good and bad side? If he is two-faced, then he is untrustworthy."My point to show that God is, by your definitions and statements, at worst a neutral God. As I said before: "Neutral" is a world away from "evil". However, you take "neutral" to mean "lazy", "confused", "two-faced", and "bipolar", which are poor half-synonyms, where words like "impartial", "unbiased", and "unprejudiced" would be more reasonable. Trying to skew a word of objectivity to mean something childish or of negative connotation is either mistakenly or intentionally misleading.Your go.1. https://www.google.com...2. https://www.google.com...