The Biblical God cannot be shown immoral

Con would be correct that the burden upon me would be unbearable and the burden upon him remarkably light if all that were required for purposes of this debate was to show in some way that God is immoral. However, that was not the original premise of the debate which as seen in the opening statement was that "the God of the Bible cannot demonstrably be shown immoral," "His actions in both the Old and New Testaments can be justified," and "no definitely complicit actions exist by God as recorded in the Bible." I reaffirmed this with the conclusions to both my 2nd and 3rd round posts as well, stating "the burden of proof now rests with Con to show evidence that the Biblical God is indeed lacking in morality in lighty of how the Bible presents said God" and "there is no definite implication of guilt or abuse on God's part from the cass in question." As my second-to-last paragraph sought to clarify, the burden of proof should be upon the side of prosecution/criticism to show beyond all shadow of a doubt that a witness is guilty. It is not enough to simply to make inferences that God is guilty, or provide some form of argument that God is guilty, to truly declare God guilty one must show this beyond all shadow of a doubt. The standard in court of law is innocent until proven guilty and that one is innocent by default until evidence definitively disproves all alternatives. Thus, it is only contingent upon me to show that such alternatives exist, and that the prosecution or criticizing side has not adequately provided a convicting case against God.I reaffirm the conclusion made in the previous round, that if one is by default innocent until proven guilty in court of law, this should apply so much more to the Creator of all; and that if we are to be cautious in falsely condemning our fellow man, so much moreso should we be cautious in condemning the God who made us. As I previously said, a prisoner should be careful in falsely condemning his judge, and a servant his king, even so should we give God the benefit of the doubt unless evidence exists showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that what God did was wrong.To win this debate, Con should be able to show cases where God is most definitely wrong, "definitively" and "demonstrably" beyond shadow of a doubt as would be the case in court of law to show another person guilty. I am not convinced Con has done so to this point, and assert that none of the cases provided would be evidence to show a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as would be the legal standard. In the case of Genesis 3, the act committed by mankind is nothing short of rebellion, seeking to take power belonging solely to God which had been forbidden by mankind, and conspiring with a rebel leader, Satan, seeking to overthrow God. (Isaiah 14:12-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:4) Satan's iniquities and evil trafficking corrupted the officeshe had been given. (Ezekiel 28:16-17) Ultimately, the U.S. like many other countries considers treason a serious crime, and mankind's rebellion in concert with Satan could thus not be taken lightly. In Genesis 7, a lack of detail about what humanity's wrongdoing was means we cannot draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether or not God was guilty. We are told in Genesis 6:5 only that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth," what this wickedness was we can only hypothesize. We are told of God's destruction of the Canaanite nations that this include the egregious sin of child sacrifice, and as such a greater destruction would logically include an at least equivalent global evil. Nonetheless, we do not know what the great evil was that necessitated mankind's destruction and, lacking such information, cannot adequately determine that what God did was immoral. The circumstances of the case could ultimately end up justifying God, we do not know. Concerning Romans 5, again, God was justified in punishing the rebellion of mankind. As Paul observes just shortly before this, "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? (I speak as a man.) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?" (Romans 3:5-6) It is not wrong for a judge to punish the guilty, and a universal judge is necessarily obligated to inflict justice for sake of universal order and morality. Furthermore, death is not itself inherently immoral according to the Bible, as it does not cause a creation to stop existing, merely sends them to a temporary waiting room in preparation for a Final Judgment that will determine their ultimate destiny. The Bible makes plain that it is a final death which should be feared, not death in this life. (Matthew 10:28) Death is necessary to ensure that evil rulers like Hitler or mass murderers like Jack the Ripper do not live generation after generation to perpetuate their unspeakable evils upon the earth. When all mankind is corrupted, death becomes necessary to minimize the evil effects of the most wicked people. Ultimately, God's decisions here are perfectly justifiable both from a standard of justice, and from a viewpoint of necessity. Which brings us to the last and certainly strongest argument made by Con, and the only argument left to convict the God of the Bible, 2 Samuel 11-12. Con, it would seem, acknowledges the guilt of David, but questions why God's punishment affected both David's child and David's wives. The seeming inference being that an unborn child cannot be guilty of anything before God, even though Biblically "the wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." (Psalms 58:3) Another inference seems to be that David's wives could not have committed guilty actions as well, even though in the case of Bathsheba at least, it seems quite probable that was not the case, since she apparently instigated David's adultery. (2 Samuel 11:1-5) I would argue that as in the case of Genesis 7 we are not given enough information about the child or wives to know for sure whether God was justified or not. That both were guilty before God is evident since all are guilty before God (Romans 3:19-23) but what the extent of that guilt was and whether it was deserving of the punishment is of course debatable. Ultimately, humans look from a temporary perspective of this life only, but that David's child went to the same place David would in sheol, paradise with Abraham (Luke 16:22), is evident from what David says in 2 Samuel 12:23, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." Concerning my opening statements, they were designed simply to evince what mistakes critics typically make when alleging Biblical contradictions or flaws in God's personality, that my opponent would know from the start what my reasoning would be. Again, I considered the burden of proof always upon the side of Con to show that the Biblical God is definitely immoral beyond all shadow of a doubt. While Con's fourth argument is certainly more compelling than the previous three, it rests upon a series of assumptions, as do many claims of flaws in God's character, namely (1) that it was better for the unborn child to be born despite the fact that David's other children ended up committing grievous sins which doubtless affected their eternal destinies - 2 Samuel 13, (2) that David's wives were not guilty when 2 Samuel 11:1-5 appears to show at least one, Bathsheba, was, (3) that the unborn child was guiltless which cannot be inferred per Psalms 58:3, and (4) that death in this life is inherently immoral when the Bible says ultimate death in hell is that which is to be feared (Mt. 10:28) while unborn children go to a place of peace envied by Job. (Job 3:11-19) Ultimately, the entirety of the Bible gives me confidence that in the end when hearts are made clear all will praise God per 1 Corinthians 4:5, and God will be able to justify Himself. I do not believe the evidence in any of these cases definitive enough to convict God.