The "Epicurean paradox" disproves the existence of the biblical God.

Before I begin my final statements I would just like to point out that if God does indeed exist, as we have defined him, then the Human Soul is immortal and will last for all eternity thus making our brief sojourn on this earth not quite as horrible as it seems right now. So continuing Pro has presented three rebuttals to my first point I will address each of these in order His first - point I believe Pro has misunderstood my first argument. My argument is not that people would not have any morality it is that no one person's morality would be true because without the absolutism represented in God, all things would then be relative including morality. If morality is relative then no person can say their morality is better than someone else's because it is all a matter of opinion. So if there was someone whose morality said that it was okay to rape and murder a seven year old little girl, then you cannot say that what he did was evil because his morality is different than yours and without an absolute morality, that can only be achieved with the existence of god, there cannot truly exist evil only differences in morality. His second - point Now this is true, God himself has a moral law that he to must follows otherwise he would cease to be God, however God will only do things for the salvation of man and he is omnipotent and can do anything, however he will only ever do things that pertain to righteousness. Now I don't know exactly what this moral law is because it has not been revealed unto mankind, or at least me. In addition if you don't understand how something God does is something pertaining to righteousness doesn't mean that it doesn't as I highly doubt you are omniscient and able to see and understand all things that god does, no offense. His third - point Now I would like to point out first that Pro was the first person to bring in the Bible into this debate not me; however in my opponent has brought forth a slew of Bible verses that supposedly put God's perfectness into question I will address some of the bible verses in a minute but first I would like to point out something. Pro has decided to judge God's actions and thus assumes that his morality is superior to that of God's. This is absurd for as previously stated I highly doubt that jat93 is omniscient, whereas God is, so it is like a being that posses the mind of an ant trying to judge the actions of a human. It is absurd for the ant cannot even begin to comprehend many of the things that the human does. But in continuance I would like to address two particular verses as the answers to them can be applied to other verses. God - Commits genocide by flooding the earth and destroying everybody alive [3] Now in order to understand this you first have to recognize that all the people on the earth were wicked and there was not a single righteous soul among all the inhabitants of the earth save Noah and his family. Now these people were beyond all chance of redemption and had they continued in their wickedness it would be oh so much worse for them when they were brought before the eternal judgement bar of God. Now it God by smiting them has made it so they no longer have that opportunity to continue in their wickedness and no longer inflict harm upon themselves from the eternal perspective. God - Sets a plague upon the Israelites and kills a whopping twenty-four thousand of them because a bunch of them had sex with people who practiced a different religion than them (in this case, Ba'al worshipers). [4] In this situation these people had openly defied God's commandments, now when a child disobeys a parent punishes them, and remember God does not view death as the end it is simply an intermediary step. Continuing Con's first rebuttal to my 2nd point C. S. Lewis actually has a quote about that "We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them"[1] So if every time someone attempted to shoot another person and God made the gun not work than this is still infringing upon the free will of the person using the gun. Now if you say that what if God did it only part of the time then you cannot prove that he doesn't do it now and does not sometimes cause a gun not to work. 2nd response to my 2nd argument I will concede that the free will argument does not answer these things. 3rd argument rebuttal first - Now my opponent does not realize that honestly this child does not know what starvation is if they never knew what it was to be full. Yes this child had a horrible life but if they really never encountered good in their entire life then they don't know how horrible they have it because they know no other life. Yes from our standards this child had a horrible life but because we have encountered quite a bit of good in our lives, that allows us to realize how bad the child has it. 3rd argument rebuttal 2nd - All things can be reduced to a matter of principal all principals are either of God or of Satan, there is no neutrality in the eternal scheme of things I urge voters to vote Con as one of my refutations has passed through strongly and only one needs to. [1]C. S. Lewis The Problem of Pain HarperCollins:New York, 1996 p.24-25