if the Abrahamic god exists, that being is evil.

Knowledge of good and evil: Knowledge of good and evil is not a lack of ability to interpret morality, no idea where that came from… You must have read that wrong as I specified lack of comprehension of good and evil which is, to borrow your worlds, knowledge on a personal level of good and evil. God himself, being all knowing, must have had this knowledge. I guess I failed to get across that god made us unequal to him in at the very least our ability to have knowledge of/ comprehension of good and evil. He made subpar beings intentionally. If you do not seem angry that god made humanity to be a lesser being than himself then I cannot debate with you, as you have clearly succumb, and are complacent with the stature of being a sub-capable compared to your creator. God put a governor on our cognitive abilities by limiting our ability to understand his will. He gave us basic intelligence, why would he deprive us of more if not for his intention to create sub-par beings? I will try to relate this again. Every engineer/ programmer I know wants to create the top notch program. We programmers do not want to make something sub-par, or not able to in every way be able to thrive in its environment and fulfill every task we give it. Sometimes we fail, but we are imperfect beings after all. In the field of artificial intelligence, the programmers (much better than me) are constantly trying to make the artificial brains’ level of intelligence at least as powerful, as high performing as our own brains. We even have tests to determine how close we are to at least mimicking that level, Turing tests. Our goal here is not to simply mimic however, it’s to create an equal intelligence to our own. This would be a scientists’\ engineers’\ programmers 9th symphony! God, on the other hand, chose not to aspire to such lofty goals and instead chose to make intelligence less than that of his own. If the scientists were doing the same and stop at making a sub-par unequal intellect, that is an injustice to the intelligence they create and would hold that to be as immoral as gods choice to create a half baked intelligent being. The flaw here that I am trying to point out is that, although god made us with free will, he made us with less than his own ability to comprehend, to hold personal and intellectual knowledge of good and evil just as he does and to be able cognitively to understand his will. We know that he never intended us to have this ability in the first place when he says “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” We are imperfect by design. How is this not immoral and evil to make us less than as perfect when he had the ability to do so? Noah: God punishes humanity by destroying/ killing off the most evil/ corrupt of beings, but chooses one family to repopulate the earth; a family he knows will be more submissive to his commands than the rest of humanity which he had punished through destruction. I do not see how this is not exactly improvement of human traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people (a family that went so far as to build and collect all animals at gods command has to be desirable to corruption) and reduce reproduction of the less desirables (the destruction of all humanity that was so deeply seeded with corruption that everything they did was an abomination). As Con points out God himself did not do a very good job with choosing Noah There are many interpretations Noah’s post flood story, one being that Ham sodomized or castrated Noah. It’s inferred from the fact that Noah had no children after the Flood. I will let readers delve into others. God chose Noah the “most righteous man on earth” (Genesis 7:1) (Ezekiel 14:14) (Genesis 6:9) (2 Peter 2:5) (Hebrews 11:7). Is it not evil that god would choose a man he considers righteous, that would punish his own grandson (Canaan), and his descendants, for the supposed “sin” of the father (his son) Ham? Punishing the sons for the sins of the father, explain how this is moral/ righteous by any stretch of the imagination? Sodom and Gomorrah: Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. [1] God deliberately and systematically killed/ destroyed a large national group of people that live in Sodom and Gomorrah. How is this NOT genocide? North Korea sees South Korea as an abomination for its support of democracy would not be immoral of them to completely destroy S. Korea and sink it into the ocean (figure of speech) and kill every citizen they could manage? Lots Wife: My mistake, curiosity is neither written nor suspected by scholars that that was the reason for her punishment. However scriptures don’t say whether her death was a punishment for valuing her old life so much that she hesitated in obeying, or if it was a simple consequence of her reluctance to leave her life quickly. Amalek: It appears my point was overlooked again. I am not saying that it would be righteous of the Israelites to attack the Amalekites. They attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation at Rephidim as they were traveling during the Exodus (Ex 17:8). Attacking them back was Justice in those times. Gods intention when it is said "Blot out the memory of Amalek" is referring to the extinction of the descendents of Amalek, then that is by definition genocide! However, this is NOT the point I was making. God was toying with an old man to decide the battle! Forcing Moses to keep his arms up, and every time they went down Amalek would have advantage. God could lend hand to Joshua as he did to David later for the justice of the Israelites instead he was cruel to force an old man to keep his arms up with a staff the whole battle that just and deserved. Job: To prove a point, God gave Satan permission to torment Job. Job’s children were killed. Job’s possessions were destroyed. Job tore his clothes and shaved his head from grief. God allows Satan to smite Job’s body with horrible boils "from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head." I am sure the Geneva Convention would allow for satans brand of torment, which god expressly consented to. Punishing us for Adams & Eves sin: We are still suffering death! You yourself admit that the “‘process of death' is a natural consequence of separation from God.” Separation of god happened because of Adam and Eves original sin, we like they, are being punished with death. In Christianity, God sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. But the forgiveness never came. We never reverted to what we as humanity were before Adam and Eve committed their original sin, immortal and given access to the tree of life again. Hunting souls: That was meant for emphasis, I am not saying that god is taking a bow and arrow and trying to find some nice souls to add the heavenly collection. It was meant to emphasize the cruelty for still imposing the punishment of death on the descendants of A&E for their original sin, especially since Jesus died so that we could be forgiven. “God is Giver of Life, he alone has the right to take it. “How is that sentence, that sentiment, that belief, that logic not in every way immoral? Sinister: No you would not be sinister if you told me by house was burning, I should get out. But it would be sinister if: You put the gasoline in front of the house God put the tree of knowledge of good/ evil in eden You showed a kid what a lit match is God showed A&E the tree exists You told kid the house would burn it you light the gas God told A&E they would die from eating the fruit of the tree You neglect to teach the kid what the implications of a burned house are. God neglected to teach A&E what the implications of death are. [1] Funk, T. Marcus (2010). Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court