God's love for humanity is questionable

I want to apologize to my opponent for my spite and condescension in the previous rounds. I had no right to do so. Con is a civil and a respectable opponent. I thank him for accepting my challenge and wish him the best in his time at DDO. May the final round be peaceful, calm and smooth. A little rebuttal: "My opponents "premise" statement was an argument in support of his postion as "pro" in the debate, and I failed to see why I should allow him to post an argumentative statement in Round 1 and I should not argue in Round 1. The argument under guise of "premise" called for an argument in response." I believe the explanation of the definitions of a premise will help you understand that there is nothing wrong with my statement. Definition of premise: "a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference; specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn" or "a statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument" (1) My claim that ‘God does not love us unconditionally’ was a proposition I made and was to be my premise. My conclusion and resolution resulting from the premise was then, ‘God's love for humanity is questionable.' I do not think there is any problems or issues with this. Also as requested kindly by Con, I ask the voters to not deduct conduct points from Con. Please let the conduct be a tie or if you wish, reduce my points. End of rebuttal. I would now like to take the time to address an earlier statement my opponent had made. And then I will write a conclusion/ summary. In round 1, my opponent gave me insight to some reasons as to why he is a theist. I wish to properly give a reply and opinion to this statement. "Before I believed He loved me unconditionally, I was speaking in many ways against Him and doing many things in violation of His law such as stealing, lying, and many evil thoughts and actions I am not proud of. All of these things were harmful in one way or another to the people around me, and God hates every one of those things I did, and every evil thought I had, and He still hates it when I do things like that. I'm not perfect yet, but I have learned to agree with Him speedily when I see I am thinking or acting contrary to His Law." Understand that you did these things because you believed you didn’t have a choice. Humans evolved to survive. When you lie, you do it to protect yourself from accusations and blame. When you steal, you do it because you fear a lack of abundance and resources. When you have negative thoughts your brain is just trying to process the negativity in your life and find positivity and peace where it can. Perhaps you keep your belief in God because you are afraid to feel guilt and are afraid of what others might think of you. That perhaps you are worthless and that you do not deserve to live. So you seek redemption from religion. However in doing so, you have also come to accept the 'truth' and believe that you might after all be, worthless. But such a belief is nonsensical and the truth is that you can decide to stop feeling guilty and move on whenever you want. Your emotions are yours to control and if you define yourself as a worthless being, then perhaps you need to find the time to be alone and ask yourself why you would believe such things. Conclusion/ Summary God puts you in hell. Not just that hell exists as God’s creation but that God, with his will, sends people to hell. This negates the idea that God wishes humans to have free will. There is no point to free will if it is going to be stripped away in the end. To God, time is wildly different and one human lifetime is probably only micro-seconds to God. From this perspective we see that God gives us free will for only a miniscule amount of time. This shows his lack of compassion and willingness to bestow free will on humans. If you only let a hamster out of its cage for an hour and then lock it up and leave it there for a year or forever, then you really weren’t going to give the hamster free will at all. You just wanted to test what it would do if you released it for a while. Because of this, it contradicts one of the human made reasons for why God does not prevent evil from existing. Another point I wished to make but sort of swayed from is that God may not be omnibenevolent. Which means there is a reasonable justification to doubt God’s love. According to this popular modus tollens, evil cannot exist if a God exists (2); God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An Omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way I which those evils could be prevented. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists. This modus tollens is valid since if premises are true, the conclusion must follow and be valid as well. However evil does exist and that’s an issue. This is my solution if we were to just assume and accept that God exists. It continues from the above modus tollens. Evil exists. Therefore God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. And God does not want to prevent evil. In order for God’s existence to be valid, one of God’s attributions is false. God must require to be omnipotent in order to create the universe and carry it with His mind. God must require to be omniscient in order to keep the image of the infrastructure of the universe in His mind and create the universe. God does not require to be omnibenevolent in order to be able to do the above things. If God is omniscient, omnipotent but not omnibenevolent, then evil can exist. God is not omnibenevolent. Therefore if God is not omnibenevolent, then it is highly questionable whether or not He loves us. There is reasonable doubt to negate the idea that God truly loves us. It is reasonable to doubt any claims purporting that God loves us. The truth of such claims are highly questionable. Con must prove that such claims cannot be questioned and that God’s love for humanity is unquestionable, undoubtable and undeniable. Thank you for the debate, sincerely, Adam Godzilla. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...