All Religious Bloodshed is Righteous if God Exists

Condonement of Righteousness I honestly don’t understand the logic that my opponent presents here. I am fully aware that God is omnipotent and omniscient. How does omniscience and omnipotence mean that everything that God does is in accordance with his will? This links back to Satan argument. Satan stops divine intervention. I will leave this at that. I believe that this argument all comes down to both major premise 8 and major premise 9 (MP8, MP9 and possibly MP7 too). Argument Of Righteous Bloodshed MP3 - My opponent isn’t making sense here. The logic presented is comparable. If I believe in the Christian God and the Christian God exists then that doesn’t mean that bloodshed in accordance in it is righteous. If I believe in something comparable to Christian God, let’s say David Cameron (UK Primeminister - due to a comparable sense of authority with both figures). That doesn’t warrant bloodshed in David Cameron’s name. Even if a large group of people didn’t believe in David Cameron that wouldn’t change whether or not bloodshed is justified in accordance with it. Furthermore, the Christian God (as I have previously shown) strongly promotes non-violence, pacifism and to love thy neighbour and more importantly love thy enemy. This is one of the most important teachings in Christianity and is considered by many as crucial in order for God to accept you into heaven. This is clearly against the will of the God of Christianity (as I have already expressed in previous rounds). Ergo, this premise is invalid. MP7 - My opponent’s rebuttal here is insufficient. He does a great job of pointing out the flaws in his definition and then he proposes that it is ridiculous so we ought to not consider “creator of the universe” as a qualifier. This is unfair. I accepted this debate agreeing to my opponent’s proposition of the definition of God including the qualifier of being the creator of the universe. I do not find it fair that my opponent can simply change the qualifiers involved simply because he now notices a potential contradiction. I stand by my point that Satan is potentially stopping God from intervention; that Satan is not God and that this premise fails. My opponent, under their burden, must prove that this premise stands in all circumstances coinciding with his definition of God. Even if my opponent doesn’t account for one possibility that stands under his definition and that I presented then the premise fails as it insufficiently fulfills his burden. This is the case here. The premise does not stand. MP8 and MP9 - My opponent’s rebuttal to the “heaven and hell” argument is flawed. It is not an appeal to consequences. An appeal to consequences does not equate to a valid contradiction. There would be no purpose to the system of having a place for good and bad people if God caused people to be good and bad. That would be ridiculous. An example of an appeal to consequence would be “X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.” [1] Regarding my opponent’s analogy I find it to be flawed in many ways. Firstly, my opponent doesn’t take into account the writings of holy books that act as contradictions. Secondly, even without considering this there is a contradiction. My opponent fails to account that A - God does not necessarily want the world to be perfect as this would give the actions of people no meaning [2]. B - The elements of the world that have inspired religiously motivated violence have also inspired good actions as a result of religion. People have given to charity because their religion teaches it as righteous, the increasing number of scientific confirmation on theories such as evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc, are encouraging theists to look at possible alternatives and ways that a divine being could exist even with these events occurring. This ultimately widens our knowledge which is also seen as something that God (in many applicable religions) wants us to do [3]. Regarding free will, he knew that people would misunderstand that but whether they understood it correctly or incorrectly he knew that people would do good in the name of religion and in the name of God. He also knew that they would do bad but this was of their own free will (as God has given us according to many religions) [4]. He allowed us to use our free will to do what we wanted with our knowledge of his existence. We know that some God’s under my opponent’s definition have clearly stated that free will exists and that it has been put in place. Christians believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. Muslims believe in free will. All 3 of these major religions believe in free will and this is confirmed by the words of Prophets and of God [4]. Okay. I’m going to drop the mouse scenario and put it into real life context. In real life the real life context there are no unknown variables (obviously) because God is omniscient. My opponent to explain his erroneous claim that God is in full control of everything that is in existence. This is not true, it is to a certain extent (ie. laws of physics, etc) but not completely. Since my opponent does not explain or justify this claim it should be considered as assertion and thus irrelevant.ConclusionI have negated my opponent's arguments. They had a massive burden in this debate and to be honest I don't believe that they have managed to fulfill it. They provided an argument in the form of a premise structure meaning that even if I defeat a single premise the whole argument fails as they are all necessary to reach the conclusion. They had to account for every possible God. I believe that my opponent did a great job attempting to defend the position (much greater than I though would be possible), however I do believe that due to the size of the BOP and massive difficult involved in fulfilling it I believe that I have won the debate. Thanks you again Chaosism for allowing me to debate this topic with you. This has definitely been an interesting debate. The resolution is negated. Vote Con! Sources [1]https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[2] http://www.trinityhigh.com...[3] http://www.missionislam.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...