God, whether he exists or not, is not always right.

Counterpoint 1: My opponent argues: "...guess what God did to those 'oh so terrible' children of his who worshipped other gods and didn't follow his orders? He set the plagues on his children. Yes Moses did warn the pharaoh before each if the disasters, but it was clear that the Egyptians wouldn't believe him."God had a very good reason for not being so merciful besides being omniscient. He was simply leaving the choice to Pharaoh so as to give him a chance to turn from his lifeless idols so that he may have a chance to enter God's kingdom of heaven. But no, Pharaoh ignored the warnings, and there were nine plagues before God killed the firstborn of Egypt. That means the Pharaoh had nine chances to realize that Moses was not doing absurd magic tricks, and by his own choice, mind you. The same logic should be applicable to any other Bible story like the story of Moses. As for actually killing them? It was more than likely meant to teach Pharaoh and all the other spared Egyptians a lesson: "Don't disobey Me." And after the tenth plague, Pharaoh DID free the Hebrews. As I specified earlier, he had nine chances before his kingdom started to fall so much apart.Counterpoint 2: The same logic is applicable between God's punishment to Pharaoh and when your worldly father punishes you for breaking one of his rules. I clearly demonstrated in my last counterpoint that God was justified in sending the plagues. When your father spanks you for, say, eating too much candy, he does that for your own good. If you choose to defy him, that was entirely volitional. I clearly demonstrated in my previous counterpoint and will demonstrate further what Pharaoh had in common with a defiant five-year-old: Pharaoh had so many chances, and never took one of them. That is what very defiant five-year-olds do. They disobey their parents repeatedly, and learning their lesson is very difficult for them. It was that difficult for Pharaoh, too. Both punishments were for the receptor's own good and for entirely volitional sins.Counterpoint 3: My opponent argues: "Imagine if the roles were reversed and the pharaoh was telling Moses about Sobek (an Egyptian god with the body of a crocodile) and how he will destroy every single one of the slaves from Canaan if he didn't let the Egyptians go, would Moses have believed him? No. Moses would've trusted God and ignored the pharaoh's warning." Again, my opponent's argument is invalid, because Sobek was two things Pro claims God is: not omniscient and not always right. The Christian God is infinite, while all Pagan gods were finite and therefore wrong here and there (the Greek god Zeus, for instance.) I have clearly demonstrated that these two scenarios would have been different, and that renders Pro's "reversed roles" argument invalid.Counterpoint 4: My opponent argues: "Why did he kill the children? Even if all of them supported pharaoh's decisions they were only children and would not have understood fully what they were doing."There is nothing in the Bible saying that God did not show them hell and clarify that He was the God of Abraham, not Anubis, their god of death and mummification, then tell them they were fools if they wanted to go to the place God was showing them, and told them He would give them another chance, but they must live their lives for Him. Counterpoint 5: Addressing my opponent's entire argument in one counterpoint, avenging a person's wrongdoing to oneself does not make the avenger a psychopath, it simply makes them look like one. If my opponent committed a terrible crime with an intentional high negative effect on me, I would probably want to get even with him, but I would ask God to take the desire from me, and I would then no longer want revenge, so would that make me look like a psychopath? Yes. But would it actually make me one? No. I would cool off very soon. Most of the same logic should be applicable to God.Counterpoint 6: The main idea of this counterpoint is that if God is real, He created the Solar System and therefore must be omniscient. The Atheist explanation for how the sun formed is that perhaps some sort of shockwave from a supernova triggered dust particles to combine into a spherical cloud, thus causing a chain reaction until it collapsed in on itself, and it continued to spin faster and faster until it would blow off any and all dust that came near it, and it flattened from its own speed into a dense-cored spinning disk. It's temperature is believed to have increased over time, thus causing hydrogen to become helium through fusion, setting off nuclear reactions that caused bursts to form the sun. Atheist scientists also believe that the planets formed through a process called accretion [1]. This implies that the solar system formed by chance, but I would like to challenge that nonsense. It would also be difficult, if not impossible, to animate this accurately because it is hard to scientifically tell what that would really make the solar system look like. That means that it would be likely that one or more of the planets was positioned incorrectly. If any of them were too close to the sun or too far away from it, simply saying, Pluto would have drifted off already, and the rest of the solar system would be a Solar Scatter instead of a Solar System. I will fully explain this in case of any need. Key Point: The gravity of the other planets is apparently the only thing keeping Pluto from drifting off into outer space.If any of the other planets were too far from the sun, they would drift off, taking the other planets with them, and thus leaving the planets in front of them with no gravity to keep them their distance from the sun, which means they would be vaporized, and thereby stripping them all of their gravitational pull and causing the other planets to drift out of the sun's gravity field. If any planet were too close to the sun, it would drift toward it more quickly than it does in reality, and would take smaller planets with it due to its gravitational pull. Because they would be together, their gravitational pull would increase, this causing them to go into the sun faster. This would leave the planets behind them with no gravitational pull to keep the from drifting off. It makes no difference if anything in this counterpoint is wrong, because in any scenario you look at it in which one or more planets is misplaced, the Solar System becomes a Solar Scatter in six-thousand years or less. Did a coincidental event make the Solar System stay intact like that? I think not, but if you wish to continue thinking that, I am fine with that.Conclusion: If God exists, He was able to create a Solar System that stays organized and together all the time, that means He must be omniscient. If He is able to be right about how to make a Solar System that has stayed together all the time ever since He created it, whether it was millions of years or a mere six-thousand years, He was right about it and therefore should be able to be right about anything else.Counterpoint 7: Having sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins does not make God evil. God asked Jesus about it before sending Him to die on the cross so everyone could be save more easily, and the choice of whether or not to do it was Jesus' own choice. He did not have to do it. He did volitionally it out of love for us. Plus, He knew for a fact that He would rise from the grave.Sources:[1]- http://www.nhm.ac.uk...Back to you, voice_of_truth.