God is immoral and evil.

All knowing/ All powerful "Con also brings up that the God in question could not defeat iron, even though we agreed he was all powerful. This backs up my point that the "God" in question does not live up to the definition. " Pro loses the debate off of the above alone. Even if I agreed in my first argument that if God exists he would be all knowing and all powerful; this does not mean I cannot challenge this assertion later on. This is because I there are no debate terms which state that we both agree on those attributes, those attributes being applied to God is simply a part of Pros argument. I clearly pointed out a Bible verse which suggests that God cannot do something which is clearly logically and metaphysically possible. Pro did not actually refute this contention, thus it stands. Since it stands, we have no reason to believe that God necessarily has the power to stop the suffering and evil in question. Pro has not met his burden of proof. Good and Evil "Saying something is "perfect" or "love", is not the same as "absolutely morally right" Would a perfect being:(i) be absolutely morally rightor (ii) not be absolutely morally rightI think (i) being true pertaining to perfection is self-evidently warranted. If it is not, then perfection is merely as subjective as the claims of evil projected by my opponent. Contradiction "Mass murder and genocide are not acceptable within it, btu god commits these acts, and orders them. "This begs the question against God having morally sufficient reasons for the things Pro thinks are immoral pertaining to God. Pro does not know the mind of God; therefore anything which looks evil to us may be necessary for some equally compensating good. Pro has not defended the notion that these things God does, or permits are actually evil. Therefore, Pro's argument here fails. "I state again, God does not act in a benevolent manner towards every person. If he does not always act in a benevolent manner, then he is not omnibuses. "Even if God is not omnibenevolent (which perfection in the Bible seems to negate), it wouldn't follow from this that God is immoral and evil. God could be really benevolent, but not omnibenevolent, and still not be evil. Definitions"He cannot be benevolent towards all if he is pitching one side against the other. This shows he is not benevolent. "This is a non-sequitur. Even if God was not benevolent to all, it would not follow from this that God was not benevolent. Fact or FictionSaying "Darth Vader was evil" would be to presume Darth Vadar exists in a debate like this, even if this is not how we would interpret it considering everyday language. If Darth Vadar does not exist, how can he be evil? One would have to say "The fictional Darth Vadar has an evil character". My opponent is arguing that God is immoral and evil. However, something that does not exist cannot have any attributes. Therefore, Pro had to prove God existed to win this debate. He did not. A Truthful GodThere are other ways to deceive, than to lie. Thus, if it is claimed that God did not tell a lie, but he deceived; this is in no way a contradiction. ConclusionI showed that perfection seems to clearly suggest omnibenevolence. Thus, if God is defined as omnibenevolent then he cannot be evil by definition. If one does not accept this argument, Pro still fails as he has not shown that anything he is claiming is evil; actually is. Pro also did not dispute the charge I laid that God is not actually omnipotent and could stop these situations. Additionally, he begs the question against God having morally sufficient reasons for the suffering he causes or allows. Pro did not meet his burden of proof.