Misotheism

The flaw in Pro's argument of Misotheism is that he believes there is a God and doesn't give an valid debate for why he believes that a God who hates us would create a world filled with awe-inspiring creations. Why, then, would God make such incredible designs which show love themselves? If He really hated us he would create us to make us miserable and with complete obstructions that disable us from normal aptness. Don't you think he would love to watch us stumble over everything we try to do? And if he hates us--assuming evolution happened--why did he let us evolve into such complex creatures? Basically, Albert Einstein proves why there is evil (but God is not evil) from a scientific perspective. Since this is a topic of science and philosophy I will include this in my argument. You might be mixing up 'God' with 'religion.' Remember, since I am arguing FOR the Christian God, you are arguing against the claim that the Christian God loves us. According to the Bible (and, for that matter, what I believe in), God is a Trinitiy: God the Father, Jesus/God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These websites explain what the Trinity exactly is. http://carm.org... http://www.everystudent.com.... http://www.gotquestions.org... If you don't know how different 'religion' is from Jesus, I encourage you to watch this video. The concept of free will is much more plausible than saying God is the reason for all evil. If you're going to believe what is said in Zephaniah and such, you can't just pick out the violent events that might've happened in the Bible. In the Beginning of this earth there was 6 days that God created all things. The point is that when he created human kind, it was straight out. "These are good reasons so far I hate the Creator of the Universe because he destroyed the entire human race and he's only going to do it again along with the rest of the world." You are misunderstanding God's Word, God's character, and God's creation by saying this. Free will is the reason for the horrible things in this world. And as a side note, do you honestly believe that the entire human race is "destroyed"? Taken from the website [http://www.gotquestions.org...] I will show you why your "evil bible" source is innaccurate in a lot of ways. It makes two major assertions: 1) the Bible is full of horrible atrocities, and 2) the Bible is full of contradictions. Look at what "got questions" website says about "evil bible's" argument: "...It focusses on the command of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Obviously, they claim, since God initiated this request, and human sacrifice is abhorrent, surely this proves the Bible is not anything produced by a loving and good God. But where evilbible.com"s argument in this area fails is that the web site"s writers don"t understand that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him; the story is a powerful narrative typology of God Himself sacrificing His own Son Jesus for the sins of mankind. And whereas Abraham was stopped by God from going through with his act, God Himself did not stay His own hand when it came to His Son, and the end result was salvation for all who would believe in Him." It also says, quote, "The Bible is a spiritual book, and while it exhibits what is called perspicuity (clarity of expression) in regard to its core teachings, there are spiritual significance and lessons for much of what the Bible speaks about, and only those who have been quickened by God"s Spirit will arrive at their true meanings (1 Corinthians 2:14). For example, Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Critics look at this obscure Old Testament passage, laugh, and reach the conclusion that God doesn"t want people to wear wool and polyester blends. However, in this case God was using physical things to act as reminders of spiritual principles. He was telling Israel not to mix their pure religion with the pagan religions that literally surrounded them; they were not to be syncretistic, but instead they were to be devoted to the one true God and not assimilate other pagan teachings." Here are my only rebuttals: Pro says "He is my sworn Arch-Enemy respectively my friend and to state otherwise would make me a hypocrite to my own beliefs." Use commas in between "respectively" and 'and' otherwise your sentence doesn't make much sense. ;) But anyways, misotheism doesn't make sense anyways because you believe that you have a Creator who knows your heart yet you choose to believe against Him. It's actually a bit risky, don't you think? At any rate, Round 2 was interesting. Thank you for the arguments! I look forward to the next!