God Does Not Answer to Us

Con has clarified in the comment section, we are debating this question: "Is god beyond our reproach?"Reproach: " address (someone) in such a way as to express disapproval or disappointment. "So are we rationally justified in being dissapointed with god? I think so. The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox): P1)God exists.P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.C1)Evil exists (logical contradiction).If there's a tri-omni god there should be no evil, but there's evil.WHAT IS THIS DEITY DOING UP THERE?Nature of reproachP1) If god is beyond reproach, god is all perfectP2) A perfect being, does everything all perfectP3) God created the universeP4) The universe is not perfectC1) God is not perfectC2) God is beyond reproachP1: The only way we can't be disappointed with a being is if there is nothing to be disappointed at.The only way this can be the case is if the being is perfect.P2: Self explanatory. If he was not perfect all the time, he would be reproachable sometimes.P3: asserted by proP4:Composition Of The Universe: Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for conscious life, given that only a small portion of earth is hospitable.percent of known conscious life in the universe:There are 10 truly conscious animals.There are 8.7 million species.(probably more)0.00000115% of known life has the consciousness were operating under.0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)less than 0.00000115% of the universe should have life that is conscious.So life presumably needs water, so I how good is god at producing water? VERY VERY BAD."Two percent of the water on earth is glacier ice at the North and South Poles. This ice is fresh water and could be melted; however, it is too far away from where people live to be usable. Less than 1% of all the water on earth is fresh water that we can actually use."1%! The best this god could do is 1%.God is awful at producing life.C1 and C2 necessarily follow.Poor Communication:The God of the bible is really really really bad at communicating.He has had all eternity(literally) to convince people of his existence.If his goal is to convince eveyone of his existence, he has failed.There are like 1000 religions. If god was good at communicating, there would be one religion.Also why is this god so hard to find?If god was good at communication, he'd be easy to find.Kindness:This god is not kind. Unkind Terms Of Salvation: "Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."So not going to hell is contingent upon believing Jesus is lord. Per the previous definition of kindness, GOD is unkind in requiring worship in order to not go to hell.P1) The truly kind don't require reciprocityP2) God requires reciprocityC1) God is not kindDefense of P1- The definition presented. If one requires reciprocity, one is merely behaving in a rational egotistical way, which is understandable for a human, but not for a god." In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest"Humans and other Earthly organisms behave in this way, due to evolution and to meet needs.It's basic behavorial biology, organisms act to meet three ends:1. Individual selection2. Kin selection3. Sexual selection.So what's the conclusion?It's that humans very rarely, if ever, engage in disinterested altruism, thus they are rarely kind in the truist sense.The problem is that GOD doesn't need to act to meet this end or any ends, thus there is NO excuse to require reciprocity.P1) Humans act towards ends because they have needsP2) Humans arn't purely kind because they must require reciprocity to meet needsP3) God does not have needsP4) As a result of god not needing anything, god shouldn't require reciprocityP5) God requires reciprocityC1) God is not kindP1 and P2 is well established by behavorial biology. P3 is true by virtue of god's attributes.P4 naturally follows.P5 negates god's kindness.C1 is the neccesary conclusion.So I think this proves god isn't kind.Hell-Sending people to hell is unkind, I hope I don't have to explain why.Is god morally justified in sending people to hell?Consequentialism:P1) That which is good, promotes overall well-'beingP2) God sends people to hellP3) Hell does not promote overall well-being C1) God is not morally justified in sending people to hellDeontology:P1) Act as if your actions will become universal lawsP2) God sends people to hellP3) A universe in which people are sent to hell is a less favorable universe than in one in which people are C1) God is not morally justifiedHell is infinite suffering for a finite act. This only renders god immoral and unkind.Conclusions:God is bad at communication.God is unkind.God has not dealt with the problem of evil. https://www.google.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......http://www.biblestudytools.com......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.fcwa.org...