The Biblical God cannot be shown immoral

In this second and final rebuttal, I'd like to address Pro's objections to my case against the resolution. I'll evaluate whether he's established the resolution in my Concluding Essay.So, how did I endeavor to defeat the resolution? Primarily, I argued that the Biblical God could be shown immoral because he is immoral. Recall that we're assuming he exists.For the purposes of clarity, I'll state the argument I gave in my Opening Essay in a slightly more structured and organized format. Feel free to check that it's an accurate representation.The Argument:1. If we have no overriding reason to think someone who intentionally killed an innocent child was justified in doing so, then we should regard them as immoral.2. We have no overriding reason to think God was justified in intentionally killing David's son. 3. Therefore, we should regard God as immoral.Clearly, if the premises of this argument are true, then I have successfully defeated the resolution. Now, there are a variety of ways one might attack this argument and Pro has used several throughout his last few Essays. Let's think carefully about them to see whether any hold water.Premise (1):Pro has not interacted with premise (1) [i.e. the moral principle from my Opening Essay], and I'll take his silence as a concession.Premise (2):What about premise (2)? Let's start with the idea that David's child wasn't innocent. If that's true, then the above argument is logically invalid as (2) is not an instantiation of (1)'s antecedent (I'd be happy to defend predicate logic if prompted to). Pro indicates that the child was guilty before God by citing Rom. 3 and Ps. 58. As I've stated in my last two Essays however, we need to bracket these texts. Otherwise, there's nothing to debate: if our sins deserve punishment, then God is moral and the debate is over. Pro responds that God is the Judge of the world and has an obligation to do right. But, these don't tell us whether he's moral. He could be a malevolent and unjust Judge who violates his moral obligations. Furthermore, even if some sins are wrong "for their own reasons"--such as murder or incest--it's entirely unclear why sins such as "original sin", "blasphemy" or holding God in contempot are wrong "for their own reasons", and ultimately it's only the latter sins that matter in this debate.So, Pro's Biblical citations afford us no good reason to think David's child wasn't innocent. Furthermore, Pro has stated several times that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and he's certainly not proven that the child was guilty. It would appear he's holding the child to one standard and God to another. Finally, commonsense dictates that a child wouldn't have been able to do anything that would deserve capital punishment, by being struck with a week long illness no less.Pro also suggests that David's son will have gone to a peaceful afterlife by citing various texts such as Job 3. However, being able to compensate your victim for the damages you've caused does not justify you in causing those damages. Can you imagine breaking someone's window, and telling them you were justified in doing so because you'll pay them back? Furthermore, my opponent says that Job 3 "makes clear" that "unborn children" will go to a peaceful afterlife. But, David's son was not unborn. Interestingly, Pro appears to be making use of what he described as a fallacy in his Opening Essay, namely assuming that because Job 3 is in the Bible, God approves of it. Finally, the context of Job 3 raises the question of whether the author isn't speaking literally about any peaceful afterlife. Rather, as vv. 16-19 indicate, he's identifying this place of rest as the Earth. I've heard many people speak metaphorically about how peaceful resting in Earth will be after burial.Pro notes that God should be regarded innocent until proven guilty. I agree. Presuming that someone is innocent does not amount to presuming they're moral. A diabolically immoral individual can be innocent of a given crime. But, because premise (2) is true--that is, because we have no overriding reason to think God was justified in this--we have overruled God's initial innocence. In fact, my opponent concedes that premise (2) is true when he states that "we are not given enough information about the child or wives to know for sure whether God was justified or not." Thus, we have no overriding reason to think God was justified.Conclusion:So, it appears to me that we ample reason to think the Biblical God is immoral (assuming he exists).Peripheral Issues:What are some peripheral issues he's raised? Well, in my Opening Essay, for example, I listed a number of texts describing God as doing certain things that would firmly call his moral character into question in my mind. I glossed over these and did not propose them as reason to reject the resolution. Thus, their success or failure isn't pertinent to winning this debate. However, let me briefly interact with some of his responses.Pro alleges that God was justified in harming and condeming humankind in Gen. 3 because Adam and Eve were sinful. But, again, this assumes that sin deserves punishment.As far as why God was justified in drowning nearly everything that lived--including innocent animals, and newborns--he says we can't say God was justified, but we can imagine mitigating circumstancse. Can we? I certainly can't. Please, take a moment and carefully think about forcing someone so innocent to the world as a poor child, to drown. What could justify an almighty God in resorting to this kind of behavior? We're not asking for a miracle here. We're just asking God to be a decent individual. Could the maker of the Heavens and the Earth really not find another way?To my surprise, Pro alleges that David's wives may have actually deserved the inhumane treatment of being pushed into adultery. But, even if they may have, the question is did they? And Pro gives no reason to think they actually did.Obviously, there are a number of unresolved issues and points I'll have to neglect (as will he). However, I hope I'ved tied some of the loose ends up here and showed that Pro has failed to give us any reason to doubt either premise of my argument. On the contrary, he seems to concede both premises. But, this commits him--by the very laws of logic themselves--to the conclusion. I will therefore take it as settled that the resolution has been defeated. I'll reserve my final analysis of Pro's performance for the Concluding Essay.Thanks for reading.