The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

I would like to say, initially, that, while it won't benefit my part of the debate any longer, my opponent may wish to establish God's holiness by some account of the Bible. It is being used only as an account on God's character based on events: "God did this, God did that." Not adjectives like "God is great, God is good." That's what's being established in the debate, so if you want to make a case with God's holiness as evidence, you must first prove God's holiness.The Garden of EdenI am not sure that I do misunderstand the point of free will, nor that my opponent understands it. I think I have already proven with an earlier syllogism why Biblical free will is only a paper moon. I have yet to see any address of my syllogism at all, so as of now it stands.Yet a continuation of the Lego analogy. I am not sure I even follow the logic in this analogy; somehow leaving Legos in the floor where an equal entity might accidentally step on them does not seem to me to be comparable to an ultimate entity who knows exactly everything that ever will and could happen creating something that would hurt others. You see, an all-knowing God would know who would step on the Legos before leaving them in the floor, or indeed before they were manufactured, and, accordingly, if he did not wish ill of the person to step on them, elect not to leave them in such a way that they would be stepped on. Free will is not a factor, since, were God to know the Legos would be stepped on, he could simply avert the opportunity. On a lighter yet very relevant note, I would like to see your weird friend step on a Lego that's glued to the ceiling.As of now, I have not seen a competent refutation of my free will rebuttal, and thus my original comparison of God to Hitler based on his behavior regarding Eden remains untouched.Noah's ArkYour analogy seems great, except that it implies that these people that God 'fired' were ever hired to begin with. Another mistake that my opponent seems to be making is interpreting my mention of Noah persuading God to mean Noah begging God. No, persuasion and begging are different. For instance, what I am doing now is persuading the voters that my stance on the resolution is stronger than yours, and you are likewise persuading them that yours is stronger. Neither of us is begging. When I say Noah persuaded God, I mean he had a chat with him, changed his mind. Irregardless, that doesn't actually matter.Thanks, for these various versions that I asked for. It does little to affect the point, however.Let me see if I follow the logic of my opponent's sign argument. God knew that nobody would listen to his warning, so instead of offering a warning people would listen to, he offered a warning he knew they would not listen to, for the sake of allowing them to choose or not choose to heed it? But if he knew they wouldn't heed it, he's not giving them that opportunity. Allow me to speak your language of analogies: Say I design a computer program that responds with a numerical value that directly correlates to a value I give it. If I know that it will return a negative number if I give it a positive one, I am not giving it the opportunity to choose a positive number, because the input I am giving it is one that I know, beforehand, will return a negative number.I fail to see any logical progression at all in my opponent's conclusion that Hitler and God cannot be compared simply because God's printed doctrine says God's motives are pure and righteous. Hitler's propaganda said Hitler's motives were pure and righteous. That it says so in print does not mean it is reliable. My opponent has yet to establish that God's motives and intentions in his actions were any purer or more righteous than Hitler's. He accuses Hitler's of being uglier, but offers no support. If the number of people killed in the Great Flood is not included, Hitler did kill more, at about 11 million people, with God at only some two million. Some sources speculate the number of people supposedly alive at the time of the Flood to be in the millions, so that's several million added to God's kill count, leaving the genocide numbers for each figure about even (remember, however, that God directly carried out much of his killing, while Hitler merely ordered his). I have established that both committed genocide for the sake of racial purity. As of now, this argument stands like a gleaming obelisk, untopplable by the strongest sandstorm.JobIf God created Lucifer in such a way that he knew Lucifer would betray him, then God did not give Lucifer the fair choice of accepting him. What you're reiterating doesn't logistically add up.I graciously accept your apology, though you never really offended me.Once again, we are not on the grounds of the Bible being accurate, but of it hypothetically describing God via the events within, such as Noah's Ark, Joshua and Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon, etc. As such, we are using it as evidence, not proof. Were I to read descriptions of Der Fuhrer from his propaganda, you would probably disagree with it because of many of the things he did that contradicted those descriptions, some of it even outlined in said propaganda.As of now, I have not seen a successful rebuttal of my original point that God's sanctioning of Satan's cruel experiment on Job was very much akin to Hitler's sanctioning of cruel experiments on his 'undesirable' subjects. My point stands.Sodom and GomorrahIt does not matter whether or not my stance on the demand for sex was sound, that one band of men wanted to rape, or greet with sex, however you put it, Lot's guests does not justify exterminating every life within two cities. There are rape gangs all over India. Perhaps you would approve of God gassing India? I think not. India is full of innocent children, innocent adults, many innocent people who are not rapists, yet would still probably not leave India simply because missionaries from one religion instructed them to do so. By any moral standard with which I'm familiar, destroying India based on such principles would be unspeakably evil, yet that is essentially what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah. (Disclaimer: I do not think India is really very comparable to the Biblical description of Sodom and Gomorrah)Saying that we can trust God's judgement to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah is equivalent to saying we can trust Hitler's judgement to destroy Belgium and France. According to Hitler, they might very well have been obviously out of line.I'm familiar with Abraham's bargain with God, reducing the number of innocents necessary to spare the cities down quite significantly. I do not see God's persuadability in the issue as relevant whatsoever. As of now, God's genocide at Sodom and Gomorrah stands as a firm point; God acted mercilessly and bloodthirstily.ConclusionYes, history is written by the victors. Were we to assume, again hypothetically, that God did vicariously write the Bible, it is very natural that he would portray himself in the manner that he wanted, just as Hitler, in writing his brochures and his famous Mein Kampf, portrayed himself the way he wished. If I start from the assumption that God is as he is portrayed fin the Bible without making the entire assumption hypothetical, I go mad with fear or something at the world's worst catch 22, and I still don't see God's actions as justified. It does not matter how frequently God describes himself as righteous, his actions speak plainly to the contrary.Once more, my opponent has tried to make distinction between God and Hitler based on reason for genocide. Need I remind anyone that Hitler didn't claim to hate the Jews because they were Jewish (not a race, a religion), he claimed to hate them because of a long list of immoral actions and characteristics he assigned to them, just as God justified his actions with his reasons of 'morality.' My points all stand firmly unrefuted by my opponent's straw men.