if the Abrahamic god exists, that being is evil.

Introduction I'll start by thanking Pro for starting a debate on such an important topic. However, I must say that I find it strange to have clumped three traditional conceptions of the divine under the generic term 'Abrahamic God', when these conceptions diverge in many essential ways. I assume the debate will concern those aspects of 'God' on which all three religions agree on, and though I am a Christian, I will do my best to leave aside what is unique to Christianity, or restrain myself to use the latter as an example if necessary. I. The Universal Game-Maker The issue is whether we would be right to call God 'evil'. Oddly enough, in his first post, Pro seems to ignore the possibility of God being neither good nor evil. I find this oversight very significant: in a world created and sustained by a personal God, concepts of good and evil are unavoidable. God is not merely Creator, he is also Legislator. Both the Laws of Physics and of Morality come from him. I believe Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike could conceive of Life as a game, free and rational human beings as its players, and God as the universal Game-Maker (though, interestingly, Christianity alone posits that the game is unwinnable) . Thus good is defined by playing the game according to the Game-Maker's rules, while evil is playing without regard for the rules. And there's the rub: if we accept the latter as true in a theistic universe, good and evil are respectively success and failure to follow God's eternal law. Therefore, it would seem nonsensical to affirm that God is evil, since he alone determines what is good and what is evil. In any board game, a player who changes the rules (usually to his own benefit) is a cheater, since the only one who has that right is the one who designed the game. And since cheating itself is an affront to the rules, the cheater, by definition, is a loser. So it is for the one who calls God evil and establishes himself as a Game Maker, which is nothing more than claiming divinity. He cannot escape being called evil himself. Important: It is not that God forbids his creatures to determine good and evil, because that is simply impossible (it would be akin to God commanding humans not to draw a square circle). Pretending to determine good and evil is what is really forbidden.II. The Role of Conscience Now, this is not to say that God does not provide some sort of conscience to his free and rational creatures. Yet it is important to note that such a conscience does not tell us what is good and what is evil. This can only be told by God Himself, through Scripture or direct revelation. It would be absurdly naive to state that every human being, regardless of culture, approves and disapproves of the same things as everyone else. All conscience gives us is a sense of the existence of right and wrong, which is an essential prerequisite to discerning right from wrong. Cultures may disagree on what is evil, but we would be hard pressed to find one that denies the concept of evil altogether. All this to say that it is impossible to denounce God as evil in the name of conscience. A feeling of outrage before an action by no means renders it evil. After all, it is perfectly possible for someone to be angered by the sight of a beggar being fed ('the lazy bum doesn't deserve it!') or of a neighbor winning at the lottery ('why wasn't it me?'). III. Does God break his own rules? A possible objection can be made by pointing at instances where God seems to violate the laws he has given to his people (when God kills etc). While it is true that in earthly kingdoms, even the king is subject to the law, things aren't that simple:Kings nevertheless do not have the same rights as the average joe, and the same is true for presidents, policemen, teachers, and anyone who holds a position of authority over a group of people. Hence a command not to kill does not necessarily bind the one who issued the command. Not one religion denies that there is a degree of subjectivity in any conception of right and wrong. For example, the Torah commands for every house to have railings on its rooftop (Deuteronomy 22:8). In this case, the reason for the command is clear: 'that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if anyone fall from thence'. In the Ancient Near East, rooftops were generally flat, and people would perform a number of activities on them, which falls likely. This is a good example of how objectivity and subjectivity work hand in hand: the specifics of morality depend on the situation, but the principles behind the specifics (that life should be protected) are left unchanged. I'm sure Pro has heard the saying, 'Man was not made for the Law, but the Law for Man'. God's laws to a certain people in a certain time (e.g Ancient Israel) do not necessarily embody absolute moral truths, but constitute a tool for the well-being of the tribe. Thus Jesus was not being immoral when he he allowed his disciples to the Sabbath, and stated that 'the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27). From these three points we may gather that 'goodness' is not a set of laws, but God's will. I'm afraid I cannot elaborate too much on what God's ultimate will is, since this varies depending on which religion we're talking about. As an example, however, the Christian God's will is the salvation of his creatures. Such a will is only the consequence of his Nature, which is essentially Love ('God is Love' 1 John). With this in mind, 'good' flows from Love, while evil runs against it: evil is not merely a disagreement with God's will, but an offense against God's very Nature. For God to be evil would require of him to deny this Nature, which is absurd. IV. Should and should not If Pro will allow me, I will suggest alternate definitions for good and evil, which I believe to be simpler and more complete. Let 'good' be specified as what ought to be and evil as what ought not to be. In the theistic worldview, the universe is contingent (as opposed to the pantheistic worldview, in which it is necessitous). In other words, though it exists, it could have not existed at all. It follows that everything inside the universe is contingent as well, including our decisions and actions. It could have been that I would not have decided to write this post. This leaves room for a moral judgment: 'should the universe exist?' 'Should I be writing this post?'. The answer to that question determines whether anything is 'good' or not: the creation of the universe was 'good' (cf Genesis) because it allowed for a relationship between God and Man (which ought to take place) while my writing of this post is 'evil' because I have an exam in two weeks and I'll fail if I don't revise (which ought not to take place). The existence of God, however, is not contingent. By definition, it does not depend on anything other than itself, since God is uncreated, which makes hum necessitous. To state that God 'ought not to exist' is therefore nonsensical. God can only ought to be, since there is no other option. It becomes inescapable that God can only be good. Thanks to Pro for his attention. I am eager to read his response.Peace :)