The Christian God is demonstrably evil therefore not a reliable source of salvation/afterlife

(Who knew I was misusing the poor antediluvian all these years, sorry boys thought you were an adjective). I would also like to thank my opponent for bringing the definition of evil to the table, its that type of clarity that should make this a fun, informed debate. Con assumes incorrectly that I will be only using the second definition of Evil as 'harmful or tending to harm' In fact I will attempt to apply the biblical God to the first two definitions and might even go for the third if time persists and the audience hasn't been thoroughly bored to death with my reasoning prior to that point. This should be fun. So let us address God's evil in harm and intent in regards to the flood. My opponent makes the valid point that once God saw the carnage resulting from his water experiment, he vowed never to murder all humans ever again. Almost as if he himself were shocked by his own nature. He then goes on to point out that his inaction in drowning everyone again makes a good argument for God's morality adjustment after the flood, and that either God was likely not omnipotent, but evil no more. This is a great point, however, God himself refutes it in Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change. " So now we are in a conundrum, either God is a liar, which is evil, or he doesn't in fact change and was omnipotent all along. That omnipotence of course dictates that he was in fact committing acts of evil, primarily due to His foreknowledge of how things would turn out. My opponent also brings up a great point that the evil in mankind and the Nephilim was physically corrupting the earth, so God used the same earth to destroy them all. This is a very interesting point, however it must be noted that he chose to keep sinful humans and animals to carry on the tradition. God didn't create a new version of human that was more apt to be less naughty. In fact as soon as Noah and family get of the big boat, Noah precedes to get drunk and naked, causing his son Ham to sin egregiously by making fun of his tiny naughty bits. Clearly not a superiority righteous pick on behalf of the Lord Almighty. The other problem with the notion that God was forced to destroy almost everything is seen in the great lengths that he went to, to get all those animals onto that ship. Hopefully the audience takes note that during the first round, I made a specific point to note that toddlers were destroyed. If God had the ability to cram billions of tons of animal into a skip, it is reasonable to believe he had the ability to make a few divine for the little one's he ultimately chose to drown. God was clearly behaving with intent to harm, behaving with evil in his heart. Now lets get to the first definition of evil, that my esteemed opponent mentioned was " ludicrous and would be next to impossible to defend". - (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit. For this definition I would like to submit a good friend of mine named Job, and more to the point his original family. I have another example that will prove a little more poinent, but will save that for the next round, don't want my barrel to overheat from firing too much ammunition. Job was a good man who lived in UZ, he had 7 son's and 3 daughters. His kids loved to party and enjoy life, which Job worried about, but were otherwise good kids. They had hundreds of servants among which were assuredly good people. then. .. .. . Some angels decided to pay a visit to good God, and Satan came skulking behind them. God asked Him where he had been, which must have been some sort of joke, God being omnipotent and all and being the one who banished the devil to the earth in the first place. No one can ever say that God doesn't have a sarcastic sense of humor. Anyhoo, God has a sit down with the devil, 'associating' with him. God gets a little boastful and tells the devil to take a good look at his good servant Job. Satan takes a gander and says, well of course he worships you, you guard all he has. God gets that old gambling twinkle in his eye and bets that if he lifts his protection over Job, that Job would remain faithful to him. God basically bet all of Job's possessions, children and wife, that he would not turn away from God. He then gave Satan cart blanche to have at Job's family and servants and even his poor camels for christ's sake. Long story short Job's happy kids pay the price, his servants go from peacefully mending his sandals to - Job 1:16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you! " Apparently God decided that Satan was taking too much time to finish the job and took matters in his own hand sending a fireball to roast a delicious leg of lamb, and a few sandal makers in turn. Not really the behavior of a just, good God, but rather the nature of an evil being, who spends some of his time gambling with Satan. The ending of my friends story is much better thank goodness, God rewards him with a new set of kids and servants and even an upgraded wife, good for Job. .. .. not so good for his original family or servants. The scariest part of the story, is that God doesn't even end teaching Satan an important, sell I told you so lesson. He simply doesn't even address it. Satisfied with the destruction of hundreds of people to make a point that according to his biblical nature he already knew the outcome of, God simply allows Satan to carry on. God made a deal with the devil, spoke with him and bet against him, knowing ahead of time that Job would remain faithful. He then didn't even use the lesson for gain against Satan at all. He simply allowed and caused great harm to Jobs family and servants because of his association with with the forces of the devil. Association with evil. God's behavior in Uz fulfils the first definition of evil rendering it indicative of his nature, and neither ludicrous nor impossible to defend. Clearly a being associated with the devil cannot be trusted for salvation from his own notion of Justice. p. s. lets all agree to give the spell checker a big hand, as I put the poor guy through its paces this round. I think I spent more time watching poor SC correct my ignorance than actually typing it out. .. . ;-)