God is a cruel, immoral and unjust figure.

Thank you for your response. Onto your argument: Firstly I fail to see the so called "decoy" or "trap"of the fire example as you failed to initially say the circumstances of the fire and the extinguishing of it and because the debate is dealing about God's actions I presumed you were going from the view that God was the cause. The onus is not on me to try and figure it out or guess, it is on you to state the circumstances. Otherwise I had no way of knowing if you meant it was man-made or not. However If, as you say, God has given people free will then that is still God giving the will to do immoral acts. Granted, this would also mean that he has given people the will to do moral acts but why didn't he interfere at any stage? Of course this immorality is on-going and frequent but there have been many events where we see this human immorality at its highest such as the Holocaust and the Crusades. Surely God, as he supposedly has ultimate power, should have stepped in when he saw that man's free will had caused truly horrific and cruel things to happen, instead of staying in a mode of complete indifference. I cannot see how this is an overall moral act; letting 6 million Jews die during the Holocaust (example) because HE gave man too much free will, it was because of HIS doing. After all, he is as you say the one who is responsible for giving this free will so he can entirely be held accountable for it's implications. Our evil doings would then mean that they are a result of God's human design plan. Likewise this would certainly mean that we have limited knowledge because of God. Don't hate the players (mankind), hate the game (God). Also what about tragic and horrific scenarios that aren't because of man's "God given free will"? What about tsunamis and earthquakes that destroys the lives of millions every year? (example). We all know that Earthquakes and tsunamis have scientific explanations yet surely God, with his "ultimate power" is able to stop them from forming and in effect, destroying countless, innocent lives? Your point about the reasoning behind God doing good and bad things is a repetition of a point you made in the previous round and as I have claimed why I feel it is evidently all-round immoral in my previous round, there would be no point in repeating ourselves. However it's interesting when you say that "god can only take away your life after giving you it". Again there is so many unjust and immoral examples of this so I will only mention one: Thousands of infants die every year for whatever reason it may be. How can it be moral and just to claim the life of an innocent baby who by no stretch of the imagination could have possibly done anything immoral themselves in their short lifespan? It is cruel, immoral and results in destroying the lives of others, the family of the child, for example. But as you said this is all God's doing. I feel that your paragraph on "the argument of existence of rules" is invalid as you are making up information to suite your own points. (1) "god cannot both at the same time create a rule that we exist and we don"t exist, which are contradictions." You admitted yourself that this denies the notion that "God" is all powerful. Which, might I add is a term that we agreed on and is a general rule of thumb between all world religions. (2)"God needs to protect the existence of law of causality, which is everything we think we know now." (I replaced your word "it" with God just so people know) (2) is a contradiction of (1) as first you stated "God cannot" and then stated that "God needs". There is a difference between not being able to do something and choosing not to do something. If we go by the notion that God has ultimate power then this would mean that he would indeed be able to stop a death in an instance however in reference to (2), this only means that he chooses not to do so. God then WANTS the laws to take place, not is UNABLE to stop the laws from taking place. And I have already shown why I believe this is an immoral method. Also Archaeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years. By now we have a good grasp of morality and immorality. We have learned the difference but it just isn't working. Yet God still remains indifferent. Finally, in response to your points that allegedly reject mine: 1. You say that God created all emotions and either that he has all emotions or no emotions but this doesn't weaken my point that God is all immoral. If anything, it enhances it. Firstly, if God has no emotions but still created all emotions then that would mean that God chose itself to be neutral e.g he chose himself not to be able to love or care for the people he created and would inevitably kill people off at random which is extremely cruel and immoral on God's part. Likewise if he chose himself to have all emotions well then that proves that he is able to sympathize and feel for people who need him the most, yet often not do anything about it. Which is also extremely cruel and immoral. 2. I have already argued this point several times. 3. You're right, sending a bad guy to hell and an infant to hell is good in the sense that the right person has gone to the right place but it is overall a very immoral act. Claiming the life of an infant, eliminates the child from getting a taste of any real life. This is very cruel and also quite sad. It is born into the world only to die shortly after. Any chances of the child growing and developing are gone, as you say, that's what God wants us to do, grow and develop, so that is a contradiction of God's views. Needless to say this also puts the family of the child through one of the roughest times imaginable, all because of God's doing. I could go on but I feel I have said enough to support my pro stance. I look forward to the next round!