The God Of The KJV Bible Is Purely Moral

Thanks Pro for your response.I maintain my rejection of this resolution because of the temporal and moral inadequacies of such a claim.No time, No creator.Human = Property =/= Moral.*REBUTTAL-PRO'S 3RD ROUND*Pro asks:"Why must [creation of the universe] require stative time?My response:I had mentioned that creation is a process of bringing something into existence, and this necessitates time, because processes are series of actions.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...How can you have a timeless series of actions, Pro?How can you tell the difference between a creator and its created product without time?Don't creators NECESSARILY precede their creations?Doesn't precedence itself require time?No universe, no time, no temporal processes like creation, no creator, no god per the definition in this debate.Pro disagrees:"And all time doesn't really exist."My response:Are you saying that all of the types of time don't exist?OrAre you saying that eternity i.e. "all time" doesn't exist?If the former, then I would say that spacetime is demonstrable and exists, while our names for measurements of time are arbitrary.If the latter, I'd probably agree with you.Pro inquires:"When did quantum fluctuations start?"My response:Quantum fluctuations are what nothing or no energy is.When there's no energy, there are quantum fluctuations.When did nothing start?Pro switches topics:"God to make his existence explainable to us inspired the bible...ancients wouldn't understand psychics...he had to go with seems legit for us mortals."My response:I'm not sure I understand quite what Pro is saying, but it seems that Pro meant to say that ancients wouldn't have understood "physics" instead of "psychics" so Pro is claiming that if god were to explain the origins of the universe in such a manner that I've described in this debate, then it wouldn't make sense or seem legit to humans of that time.So?God, in all his supposed power, couldn't dumb down quantum fluctuations or the big bang enough to make these cosmological concepts clear to ancient people?Why is he so clear then on exactly how people should have sex, acceptable levels of female promiscuity, and owning people as property?Makes you wonder what he wants his creations to know and not know...Pro asserts:"Space came first. And if it was all jammed into a golf ball sied ball then how was there not space?"My response:Well...Without stative matter, there is no stative space, because space is merely the position of matter or the distance between matter; no stative matter, no stative space. Without the universe, from unstable quantum fluctuations, a virtual particle avoided annihilation and was able to remain, and the position of this stative matter was stative space.At the point of the big bang, there is matter and space, so at the "golf ball sized universe" there was also space.Pro argues:"It requires energy..lazer...yeah have effect but need energy...and energy can turn into matter."My response:The study I showed had to get to zero energy, because we live in a world and universe filled with particles and radiation, so it actually takes energy to remove energy.In fact, we keep finding out that to get closer and closer to true zero energy, it requires massive amounts of energy.But as I have pointed out, when there was no universe, no energy was the condition...it was rife with fluctuations because there was no energy.Energy is just an expression of matter and matter is an expression of energy.The big bang is that expression in total.Pro reminds:"The god of the KJV bible isn't matter based...it is immaterial."My response:Ok, well then let me put it this way...your immaterial KJV bible god couldn't have used a temporal process such as creation to create the universe, because time is a property of the universe.Could god have used time to create time?That's the inadequacy of such a claim.Pro, you have to answer my questions or they will stand.1. Do you agree that we have free will, but god didn't give us the freedom to use our will to read others' minds?2. Can you imagine then, that we have free will, but god didn't give us the freedom to use our will to commit evil?This shows that god can limit our free will, and we can still agree and feel that we have it, so he COULD have still given us free will WITHOUT the capacity to commit evil, no?Pro asserts:"There can be no free will without evil...free will is a choice between good and evil."My response:Free will is being able to use your will freely; it's not limited to choosing good and evil.There can be free will without the freedom to use our will to read other's minds.Therefore, there can be free will without the freedom to use our will to commit evil.Pro makes an analogy:"Was it immoral to create something that would pollute itself?"My response:Yes, if the future were everything you declared it to be and you created pollution and the idea of polluting oneself.Pro continues:"It is immoral to sell a car and that person decided to drink, drive and hit a person?"My response:Yes, if the future were everything you declared it to be and you still allowed for it to happen.Pro concludes:"Can the car company possibly be blamed?"My response:Yes, if the car company were the creator of all things, including evil, and declared the future from the beginning and knew full well that selling that car would result in an innocent person's death, then I would say it's literally all the car company's fault.I had mentioned to Pro that the KJV god is totally cool with owning humans as property, and that this seems immoral to me.So, Pro responds:"He probably means legally property...And "property" is probably a bad translation."My response:How does calling a human "legal" property make calling a human property moral?Pro, is it moral to own another human as property, legal or otherwise?Why is the source of all moral authority so immoral?Pro argues:"Council" and "plan" are not at all like in definition...Why do you treat them so?"My response:Pro, the KJV has god saying "Declaring the end from the beginning...My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."Ignore council, god's saying that everything that happens is "all his pleasure."So, all of the suffering and hardships of innocent humans throughout history is under his council and part of all of his pleasure that he declared from the beginning; this makes sense, since god created evil.Pro tries again:"Restraining the ability to commit evil is exactly the opposite of free will."My response:Is restraining us to freely use our will to read others' minds the opposite of free will?Why/why not?Pro makes another car analogy:"If the car company installed anti run some person over systems then this restricts his will to run someone over...he doesn't have free will."My response:Right, by the company restricting the car's capabilities to run someone over, the driver cannot freely use his will to run someone over.Pro continues:"The car can't fly...his will is restricted but by the car's capabilities."My response:Right, by the company restricting the car's capabilities to fly, the driver cannot freely use his will to fly.This proves my point.If restricting our free will to read others' minds DOESN'T negate our free will, then restricting our free will to commit evil DOESN'T negate our free will. They are the same concept, so god could have given us free will and limited our capabilities to commit evil.God could have also just not created evil in the first place, but what else would you expect from an immoral god like that of the KJV bible?Pro?