God of slaves.

I will begin by addressing Cons key points, then conclude my position for this debate. Thank you rross for taking this debate, it's a refreshing change. Truth cannot be present anywhere, otherwise babies that say the moon is made of cheese and it would be true. We must use a systematic method to dissimulate between truth and here-say. So if Con says: "God created us unconditionally. Our lives are, in a sense, a gift." The truth is, without a foundation of creditable evidence, it's simple here-say. Con hasn't presented any evidence to confirm his statement, but it's used to counter my position. I cannot debate or defend myself when one sentence that's sourced from his personal bias is presented, I need evidence. RE: God's weak threat. The argument present isn't my position, only Cons opinion about what god should do to warn us. If his opinion is that god should give free ice-cream to explain that god's a nice guy, that's his opinion. I don't need to defend against his opinion, only factual evidence against my position. RE: Moral obligation. Con explains how moral obligations don't necessarily imply punishment, or repercussions. However this explanation defies the meaning of obligation, since to owe is based on agreement, and if you break that agreement then what's agreed will or will not occur. Example, if morality says we should be nice to our neighbour but we're hateful and spiteful, it's very certain our neighbours wont be nice to us anymore. But if we take Cons position literally, the repercussions wont occur, our neighbours will still bring cake over for Xmas. If we're morally obligated to be respectful and loyal to our parents and we're not, then chances are something will happen based on the obligation. Dogs are taught to be respect their masters call and be loyal, and similar children are taught to respect their parents, and slaves are taught to respect their masters. A dog is not legally bound, a child is partially bound legally and morally, and a slave is legally bound. Yet all three examples have clear repercussions for disobedience: that's, when they break they moral obligation. RE: Respect and loyalty. Cons explains firstly that my opinion alone says we owe god respect and loyalty, a statement which ill explain later. Con also explains how many 'disobedient' people live without punishment, therefore we cannot be slaves since we can chose. This statement must be Cons opinion since to assume punishment doesn't exist he must know all things, which he does not. Also to say we're free to chose implies Con assumes the phase 'freedom of choice.' If we're free to chose god or not, that means we're capable to live without god. Example, im free to speak against Obama in USA and live, but in the days of Hitler I'm free to speak against and then be executed. The difference is freedom. If I'm free to chose god or not, then if I reject god, Con says I should live because here on earth we have freedom. But for Con to assume we are free to chose he must prove we can live after death without god. For Con to conclude we're free to chose, it implies punishment doesn't exist. But this statement conflicts with morality. Closing statement. Morality exists, therefore assuming god the creator also exists, means morality came from god. Since creation is subject to the creator in all ways, the reference 'slave to master' is acceptable. If creation declares it's freedom from the creator, then creation must source it's own habitat which isn't already created. And if creation declares it's free, since no obligation exists between the created and the creator, then proof must be presented that morality doesn't exist between god and humans. If we reject god who created life, and this world to live in, then we must find another dimension to live in without god when we die. Assume god the creator exists then all things must be created by god. Morality wouldn't exist without god the creator making it. Therefore our understanding of moral obligation between god and man is valid unless proof is presented. It's logical to conclude the attributes of creation are found within a creator, otherwise how was it made? Example, if soilders are taught discipline, it's logical that someone disciplined taught them, otherwise how did they learn it? If children have a moral obligation towards parents, it's logical that a moral obligation exists between all creation and the creator. A child's obligation to there parent is taught by discipline. But not all obligations need to be taught to exist. Any legal or moral obligation can be formed without it being enforced, so punishment isn't needed to be seen in order to give evidence of obligation. Example, when Bob legally agrees to build Jack a house, Jack doesn't need to smack him on the bottom to give evidence of the obligation. If the world ended before the contract between Bob and Jack finished, would we have any evidence of the obligation? Yes, in the form of legal a contract. So even if we don't see Jack taking legal action against Bob for breaking the obligation, it doesn't mean the obligation didn't exist. So even if creation isn't taught about the obligation and it's not enforced, it doesn't mean the obligation doesn't exist. If slaves seek freedom they must pay their master. But if slaves don't earn money because it's given to their master, how can they save money to buy their freedom? A slave would need to work for themselves to earn their own money. Technically speaking, this implies the slave becomes it's own master and collects his own cash for his own work. Similarly a child can disrespect and rebel against their parents leave their provision. But to move out and live, they need to source their own provision which isn't from their parents. So for creation to be free from the creator, they must create their own world without the materials already created, since what's created is the creators property. But if Con is correct, that no moral obligation exists between god and humans, then sufficient proof must be provided to show morality doesn't exist between god and man. WW2 was fought for freedom against Hitler, and the German people had their freedom denied. The only choice was to be loyal to Hitler or die. If Con says we're free to chose god or not, we must conclude we shall live after death. But if we turn our back on the creator and reject god, where will we live? Do we live in gods house that god created? No, because we rejected him. Do we build a house from wood that god made? No, because we rejected him, and that wood belongs to him and so does the land. So if we assume god the creator does exist, and no other god apart from this god exists, where shall we live? If the only option is death because we're unable to live without a world created by him, then we have no choice but to be loyal to god. And the choice between obey or die isn't freedom, it's the opposite: slavery. We are subject to a master that we have no choice, but to obey or die - God of slaves.