The Idea of God is Tyrannical

My opponent’s arguments contain many problems. His examples of pain and suffering only work if you assume god exists. As I established, we are not debating or assuming if god is real. Maybe bad things happen because an omniscient, omnipotent being does NOT exist and cannot stop them. Perhaps if a god DID exist, Hitler never rose to power and your house never burned. We are merely debating the IDEA that IF a god could exist he MUST be a tyrant. You cannot use the current state of humanity as evidence of divine tyranny because the current state of humanity could equally be caused by absence of the divine. On multiple occasions my opponent displays a misunderstanding of the definitions for “all powerful” and “all wise.” He asks why a god “would not use a better way to prevent said destruction and death?” Good question. There is only a “better” way if that god is not truly omniscient. How can a human with limited wisdom know a better way than a being with unlimited wisdom? If a god is all powerful AND all wise then there is nothing they cannot do and nothing they do not know - they cannot make a mistake. Is this not the definition of perfection? To make a mistake or commit an imperfect act then means that god is not actually omniscient and omnipotent. My opponent cites imperfect acts as examples of tyranny: Hitler, natural disasters, murders. He is therefore arguing against a flawed god that makes mistakes, not a perfect one. And for the sake of argument, even if those acts ARE perfect, then how are they tyrannical? Is perfection tyranny? The comparison of an omnipresent god to a stalker or Big Brother is illogical. A shepherd who constantly watches his sheep is not stalking, he is protecting. A mother watching her childern play at the park is not spying, she is vigilant. The use of the classic “kill a few to save many” argument is shaky at best. How is killing the three million the wise decision? Why is there only a slim chance of saving both parties? If there is an omnipotent god, chance is not a factor – both parties could be saved with the snap of a finger. How is it not both wise and right to save BOTH parties? If my opponent calls “right” or “wrong” subjective, then how does he objectively call tyranny “wrong”? Citing that dictators have been elected and loved is simplistic. On the surface, yes, despots have risen to power with parades and votes. Let us look deeper though. Does anyone who is not corrupt themselves really love a tyrant? Do free people ever vote to be oppressed unless they are coerced? Many Germans plotted to assassinate and resist Hitler(1). Does anyone actually think those lavish North Korean parades are filled with genuinely joyful (starving) people(2)? Did Afghans really vote overwhelmingly for Karzai, or were the ballot boxes stuffed(3)? Name any tyrant, and I will name for you how they used intimidation, force, and injustice to earn the people’s “love.” There is one thing I agree with my opponent on: if we cannot label god then our arguments are futile. Exactly. I am not trying to label god a tyrant, I am demonstrating it is impossible for my opponent to do so. He cannot prove a god must by nature be a tyrant, and is indeed advocating a futile and untenable position. (1)http://books.google.com... (2) http://www.pbs.org... (3) http://books.google.com...