Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

Before kick-starting with the opener, I would just like to point out by relieving my learned opponent as well as the almighty voters that the debate in any way does not intend to harm the sentiments of any section of the society. Now, getting on to the debate. My opponent has unintentionally pointed out that the "con must argue from an atheist standpoint,not a "God is good" standpoint. " but it makes me contemplate on the fact of proving something unrealistic. What I mean to say is that, it is impossible to contradict the fact that god is evil without assuming the "God is good" standpoint. Well, that's nothing to ponder upon. This statement may not actually seem to be as enthusiastic but I must admit here that it has an eloquent role particularly in this debate. This heightens the dual minded aspect of my opponent which simply is indefensible, that's all I can say. My opponent clearly reflects upon the fact that we "in general" as people commit murders, rapes, thefts and various other sinful deeds, (which may be either to harm other people or damage in any way the bounties of nature's elements) which in other sense throws light upon the fact that god is evil. But, what I would like to advise my opponent is that the world is not as much evil as my opponent has tried to summarise. It in fact, consists of much more of divinity than evil. And of course, evil forms just one aspect of the modern world for which the definition PARTIALLY stands true, not even partially I must say. Consider an example: " David Beckham is a world renowned footballer. He has won the hearts of many during his fantastic football career. But if he does not perform as well, in say, one or two games, does it mean that he has lost the ability to play? " Similarly, is evil the sole reason to admit the fact that god is evil? I mean, its only the one side of a coin, and it may even be misguiding enough. But, here I will question my so called knowledgeable opponent, "If something good happens with us we generally tend to thank god for the gift and of course bestow benevolence upon him, so does it mean that he is besmirched in times of evil? I mean, when we greet him with warm regards in good times, how can we become so cruel and relentless to neglect him and cry evil for him in evil times? And, nevertheless, life is always a pattern of ups and downs, and is always cheered with the way it is. So, god is none to be blamed for the evil that takes shape. It is the intention of humans that they resort to commit evil themselves and then berate god for all that what's been done. And as for the success we would have achieved, as highlighted by my opponent, if humans had had an inherent revulsion to murdering each other; it would come when it has to and not you, me or even the president of a country has the power to encourage its development even if there is an eccentrically happy and peaceful relationship between we humans. Oh, and my opponent abreast of his own remarkably scientific and technical knowledge and skills, this time has not struck the bull's eye. He obviously is quite overconfident with his knowledge about genes and much of the neurobiology, I must admit. He says that "all human behaviour boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of of supernatural intervention" or god, what he calls it, and it is just obvious that god didn't intervene in genetic mutations and natural selections, so this means that he wants us to continue with our original genes burdened with sin and guilt. And so, finally god is evil, according to him. But here what strikes me the most is that science has never preached the existence of god. I refer you to (. http://atheism.about.com...). And being such an ardent follower of science, as understood by his allegations, my opponent should not emphasise on the supernatural power of god and claim him to stand responsible for the unchanged effect in DNA overtime. In other words, following the principles of science, my opponent must not haphazardly enmesh the beliefs of science with god himself and that's it. So again it is the dual minded aspect of my opponent that has gained popularity here. So, I would now like to request my opponent to post his thoughts in the round II. His beliefs and contradictions are most welcome and I must admit that my opponent is surely the one, to be dealt with seriously.