If God does exist, he is evil. (Abrahamic god)

First, forgive me if everything I say doesn't directly, 100% relate to the topic of "God is Evil" You still haven't said if you refute the statements that God is OOOO."I never said God was lazy or even implied it;" I never said that you said that, but you did imply it based on your what you said it's possible that God does = not interfere. Lazy: not liking to work hard or to be active. So, assuming that God can do what he likes (because he is perfectly powerful as shown in the definition of God below), he can be looked at as lazy if he does not interfere on either side."I'm sure a theologian could formulate an advanced Bible-based proof for God's goodness, but frankly, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not at that level of education on the subject." Okay then, so a theologian could do that, and he can formulate Bible-based proof for God's evilness. True. "If I'm assuming they'll learn their lesson, you're assuming that they're not." You don't get it. It doesn't teach them WHY, read, WHY <----- it is wrong. It teaches them what to expect when they do it. This still showcases God's (you bad. you burn) barbaric, primitive mindset. It is pointless if nothing is learned. "In what way is giving atheists exactly what they expect "profoundly immoral"?"Atheists don't want to perish. That's not giving atheists what they want. Atheists want God to be proved which has yet to happen, so that is why atheists even exist. What you said doesn't make sense, seeing that most atheists don't believe in an afterlife. And it's still profoundly immoral to punish someone more than another over the exact same thing, just because one didn't by into an idea, he will perish for the same sins. You have yet to prove that's a good thing for atheists. You see nothing immoral about it because you are a theist. Are you also saying that God's "plan" is also hearsay along with miracles and other things that are in the Bible about God? His goods and evils could be hearsay, and if he doesn't do anything, evil or good, then he's not neutral, he's indifferent. He just doesn't care, but that's not the same as being neutral. Being neutral, you still concern yourself with issues, but you don't take sides. What you are presenting is that he is indifferent. You are different from most believers. You take God in a more of a literal sense, but the definition if God is: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. Perfect in power = omnipotent, perfect in wisdom = omniscient, and perfect in goodness = omnibenevolent. So if you don't believe these things, you technically don't believe in God, which would make you an atheist, making this argument, both sides, useless. With these at hand he could most certainly intervene. Also, being perfect in goodness, he wouldn't allow excessively evil things to happen at all, seeing how he's on the good team. By definition he is supposed to favor good and only do good, but he allows pointless evils, and pointless good. He isn't supposed to allow pointless evil at all. So, since he does, he defiantly can be looked at as "two-faced" although you don't agree with that choice of words. Like you said, it doesn't mean he does interfere, but it wouldn't make sense to create something imperfect and never bother with it again (humans are imperfect). If he truly sits back and just observes, than he's unworthy or worship. He deserves as 'thank you' for creating the universe and the things within it, but that's it. (forgive me for getting a little off topic, just food for thought). So, I believe we have come to a conclusion here. I have lost, although as I pointed out above, both arguments are useless if you don't follow the definition of what God is. You have proved to me that God is not an evil being, but in your word choice, "neutral" although it is more so that he is indifferent. If you say he is neutral, it is just as logical to say he is two-faced (in the context of God, of course). If you say he doesn't care or doesn't concern himself with the issues of the universe, than he is indifferent. Please respond to clear up any misconceptions, but you still won. Sources: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary