All Religious Bloodshed is Righteous if God Exists

Re: ‘Argument on the Condonement of Righteousness’ (Con):While it’s quite true that I cannot know God’s will directly, we can deduce conclusions from observation and the definitions we’re using. I said, “God could want those beliefs to exist as they are to achieve a particular end”, but (assuming an intended ends), this is necessarily the case. Below, under Defense of MP8 & MP9, I provide strong support for this conclusion, based on God’s omniscience. There can be no unknown variables to God, and everything is necessarily part of His plan. And since He is able to control every variable in that plan (omnipotence), then every part of that plan is in accordance with His will, or else He would have had a different plan or changed that variable. This is also further support under Defense of MP8 & MP9, below.To conclude, my opponent’s argument fails to fully account for God’s omniscience and omnipotence; the conclusions drawn from it are invalid, thus, invalidating the argument.Re: ‘Argument of Righteous Bloodshed’ (Pro):Defense of MP3I’m at a loss as to from where our misunderstanding is stemming. To reiterate again: “If someone hold belief X and X is in accordance with God’s will, then bloodshed in accordance with X (exactly what that belief entails) is righteous.” This premise entails universal quantification (“for all”) which applies to any given religious belief. If a belief is righteous, then all bloodshed that’s directly encompassed by that particular belief is considered righteous. Considering non-violent beliefs is still valid even if it creates a zero-result (no bloodshed), albeit irrelevant or non-applicable. It would be akin to saying “no person in this building is required to do their job, today”, when it’s distinctly possible that some people in this building don’t have a job. The statement is still valid where applicable. Note also that non-violence is not addressed in the antecedent.Therefore, this premise, being pretty much tautological in nature, stands without further justification. Defense of MP7I will grant my opponent the second point I previous forwarded regarding opposing omnipotent beings. However, my opponent appeals to the Round 1 definition for “God” in order to establish “creator of the universe” as a qualifier. However, the word “God” is capitalized (while the others weren’t) which indicates that this is intended to be a proper noun. Satan or any other proposed omnipotent adversary would still qualify as a god: “(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity” [1]. If this qualifier were upheld, then any polytheistic religion would not qualify as such unless multiple gods were responsible for creation. For instance, it would be absurd to not consider Zeus a god in Greek polytheistic mythology, even though he was not at all involved in the creation of the universe [2].Therefore, my opponent’s objections to this premise indeed transform this into a polytheistic scenario, which is specifically outside the scope of this debate, as defined in Round 1. As such, this premise stands.Defense of MP8 & MP9Firstly, in regard to a point previously forwarded by my opponent (that I missed in R2), that “…it would ruin the system of Heaven and Hell”: that constitutes a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Consequences [3] because this consequence does not impact the hard truth of the matter. It might be different if we knew that Heaven and Hell existed, though.The analogy I presented was part of an argument that undermines the examples put forth by my opponent in the previous round: since God is omniscient and the creator of all thing in the universe, the nothing is not foreseen and planned. Even at the time of creation, God necessarily knows all of the consequences that would result from His actions. For example:1. Prior to creating the universe and the elements of it that would eventually lead to Steve Johnson’s religiously-motivated murder of people, God necessarily knew that would be the result.2. God still willfully created the universe in this way such that Steve Johnson will commit this religious murder of people.3. God, knowing the elements infinitely well that led up to this result, did not intervene to prevent it from occurring (when He could easily have done so).4. God necessarily wanted this to occur since it necessitated His willful action to occur at all AND His unwillingness to prevent it.Regarding free will, my opponent states: “Due to the fact that God only intervenes with free will only when necessary (as explained further last round), this means that it makes sense that God doesn’t intervene with individual scenarios”. When God previously intervened to make mankind knowledgeable of Himself (MP1), He already knew the implication of revealing that action (being omniscient), and necessarily knew, nay, planned, for that knowledge to be distorted, perverted, misunderstood, or otherwise altered. At any given point, those who were misled by this could have easily been corrected (MP6). As per the above syllogism, that is what He wanted.My opponent continues, “This would completely get rid of free will which God wants”. This claim is only supported by the apparent existence of free will; there is no way to know this without knowing God’s will. To preempt an argument that ‘most religions claim this, therefore it is true’, this would constitute an Appeal to Popularity fallacy [4]. Much more evidence is needed beyond popularity of belief, which would require direct knowledge of God's will.My analogy can easily be expanded to address previous lives scenario that my opponent presented: God is in full control and knowledge of ALL aspects of anything’s entire existence. My opponent’s expansion falls apart when we consider that there are unknown variables: since there are so many conflicting religious doctrines and no way for us to determine which is true (if any), it is certainly not reflective of reality. Further, my opponent fails to realize that the mouse exists as it is because it was necessarily and willfully created to be that way. God, being omniscient, cannot create unknowns. So, yes, God does determine what the mouse will think and do, including that which will lead to it falling into the fire.Therefore, these premises stand true with the negation of my opponent’s contentions.Conclusion:I have intricately shown that, using formal logic, the conclusion logically follows if all of the premises are true. My opponent and I have come to agreement on the truth of the major premises MP1, MP2, MP4, MP5, and MP6 following further clarification/justification. Above, I have defended the remaining premises, MP3, MP7, MP8, & MP9, showing that they are true. This also supports the negation of my opponent’s argument, which has been done. The resolution has been affirmed.Since it is impossible to directly know the will of God, we’re limited to deductive, logical conclusions. As an analogy, say a coin flip is concealed. If we determine that if it’s heads then X is true, and if it’s tails then X is true, then we can logically conclude that X is true without knowing the results of the coin flip. My argument does this by analyzing mistaken and unmistaken religious beliefs, which logically constitutes all religious beliefs. Since my argument shows that God wishes for these beliefs to exist (whether mistaken or unmistaken), then they are necessarily in accordance with His will.Sources:[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [Definition][2] http://dept.cs.williams.edu...[3] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[4] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...Thank You:I extent my gratitude and appreciation to famousdebater for debating this topic with me, regardless of the outcome. Thank you!