In the beginning...
Notice how Con vouches for creationism, stating outright "not from evolved apes but purposefully and intentionally". We could have a debate over whether evolution is true or not, but the level of scholar evidence for evolution proves that it is one of the most rigorous scientific theories of all time. Even just one expert paper
notes the fossil records, the common structures, the distribution of species, molecular biology, and gradual steps carefully shaping the incredibly complex world of today. Nearly 97% of scientists
agree with the theory of evolution. On the other hand, there are next to no papers published on the strength of creationism. Clearly, con's assumption is absurd.
Tree of Knowledge
Con claims that the eating of the apple was Adam's (or Eve's) fault, but makes no remarks on how God allowed an incarnation of the devil, the serpent, into his garden of sanctuary. If the garden contains everything necessary, that means God intended for Adam to be tempted, eat the apple, and fall from glory. All for a "grand plan" that is unexplained. Therefore, the garden couldn't have everything, because God's "Grand plan" with omniscience included knowing what Adam would do, and deciding to punish instead of forgiving him due to the devil's clever words.
Con ignores that I already conceded that we may deserve to suffer due to our bad, but says nothing about other animals. Did the fish sin as well? What about the ants? What does he say about other animals? In addition, he makes no remarks about my accusation that God may think that babies are also innately sinful, despite their blank slate. He allows them to suffer as well.
On an extension, if God is so struck on suffering, why does he allow us to reduce it, especially to negligible amounts? For example, if you are very rich and powerful, a lucky life could result in very little misfortune. Yet on the other hand, some people in Africa are starving to death, with no education, poor parenting, so on and so forth. Even if we accept the rich man must have some small level of suffering, the disparity seems ridiculous. God infers that the greater your crime the more you should be punished. Perhaps the child will go to heaven to eternity for suffering in Africa. But if the rich man coincidentally also lives a good life and believes in God, then God has little choice but to also send him to heaven. Granted, an eternity of joy outweighs the years of suffering, but it seems absurd that the rich man's suffering was very negligible, while the poor child had incredible amounts of suffering. If God was a utilitarian, even with his timelessness, he would still try to reduce current amount of suffering if the net amount of suffering was not reduced.
How have we fallen short?
Con seems to be standing by the Kantian flagpole, assuming that lying is definitely a sin, and that lust is always terrible. He makes no remarks on my potential reconciliation with "Greater good", and makes God look like a horrible entity that says "you can't do this even if it results in the greater good", yet does it himself to result in the greater good. He had killed many sinners in the bible, and with possible intentions to send them to hell. If this wasn't a malice intention, I don't know what is.
Con seems to infer that all bad acts cannot be reconciled, contradictory to the utilitarian potential of God (sends people to heaven if they have done good, to compensate for the suffering in their life). But the intention based system also seems contradictory. God could have pointed out all the times he intended to do good in your life, and that Good will alone would respect the human dignity. Kant would certainly think it enough. Give him a little luck in finding food. Give him a small twist of fate. Regardless of horrible results overall, God's telling us of evil intentions would infer that merely fulfilling good intentions was good enough. So he has no obligation to help send the Jews executed by Hitler to heaven either. As long as he has mere intentions to help us, he can treat us as means to end instead of executing that end (ultimate good). And that's very problematic.
Con asks: By what standard are you judging God to be acting in an unjust or immoral way?
I say the scientific and societal basis of ideals. It is true that almost no one wants to suffer needlessly, besides masochists and sadists. And nearly everyone wants to protect themselves and their culture -- evident by our genetic coding to survival. In addition, the libertarian ideal can still support objective values, such as everyone's rights to life and liberty. If we did not have these, people could easily shut others in jail for no reason, or kill everyone else, leading to a society that collapses. Even with a practical or subjective application of values, looking at impact is clear to see that there can be immoral/unjust values.