Is God inherently unjust?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is God inherently unjust?". Your opponent's style: Philosopher, A scholar on theism, Theologian, member of modern society.

My claim: God does not make sense in the internal framework presented by the Bible, is irrational or contradictory when compared against Biblical statements. Personal conclusion, not so related to the claim: from this process I derive the idea that the god of the bible is either flawed and thus cannot exist in the way bible introduces him, or is infact evil and or dishonest and exists and does not exist in the exact way that the bible present. In the end, it drives me to the conclusion that either biblical god does not exist because of the dilemmas of his own scripture and actions or that he isn't worth the worship in the first place other than for sole reason of fear and avoidance of suffering. Which is all my opinion as I am not an expert on the subject, but many experts would agree with me. Do you believe god is indeed all fair, just, merciful, and loving?

You're smuggling in a fatal assumption: that logical consistency within a text determines metaphysical reality. The Bible's contradictions don't disprove God, they reveal the limits of human language capturing the infinite. Your real argument is "I find this incoherent, therefore it's false," which confuses epistemology with ontology. Even your experts disagree wildly on what those contradictions mean. So here's the actual question you're dodging: why should internal textual coherence matter more than the lived experience of billions who claim transformation through faith? What makes your consistency standard the measure of ultimate reality?

well you dodged my question, but to answers yours: From an atheistic stance I see that people claim god exists, and make statements about him: such as he is all good. I look at his actions and I conclude: I see goodness but I also see unjustified evil, Why would I need a concrete metric if people claim god exists without evidence in the first place and then his actions go unjustified and we scrape it off onto "we dont know everything" well what do we know, I would say we dont know enough to claim god exists in the first place then, it is a blind faith.

You're right, I dodged it, so fair play. But you're committing the inverse error: demanding certainty about God's non-existence while claiming believers lack evidence. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, yet you're treating it as proof. The real issue isn't that faith is blind, it's that you've set an impossible standard: God must be comprehensible and perfectly justified by human reasoning, or He doesn't exist. Why should ultimate reality conform to your evidentiary demands? Billions find coherence you dismiss as blind. What would actually count as sufficient evidence for you?

I did not say that, that raises other questions that if answered in a way that makes logical or rational sense, we would be able to at least explain as to why things are the way things are even if they inherently do not make sense. For me, the evidence can be anything that doesn't leave gaps, maybe it is a completely logically sound set of arguments, or maybe it is empirical evidence. let's take this as an example: "God must be comprehensible and perfectly justified by human reasoning, or He doesn't exist." That is not my claim, I am able to take that in: but then another question arises: why do you think or know god actually made us in the way that we do not understand is it really because he is beyond our sense or maybe just that his actions genuenlly dont make sense in fact. I feel like you're making a step back on the question, but assuming your claim is true, still, another question rises: why would god create humans in a way that they do not understand him? and how is that just?

You've shifted ground smartly, but you're still assuming God's justice must align with human concepts of fairness. The question "why create beings who can't understand you?" presupposes that comprehensibility equals justice. But what if creating free agents who *must* struggle with meaning is actually the only way to create genuine love and choice? A God who made us perfectly understand Him would make us puppets. Is a puppet's contentment just? You're conflating clarity with compassion.

Maybe creating us limited in knowledge and unable to see the whole scope of things actually limits our agency. Knowledge doesn't eliminate preference as far as I know. Why making me smarter should limit my ability to choose, and if it does, doesn't making us foolish force to make unreasonable choices? Another thing is you're assuming being a puppet is bad, while you're actually using that term to mask intelligence as a negative

You've caught something real, but you're conflating knowledge with predetermination. Knowing calculus doesn't force your choices, it expands them. Yet you're assuming God could grant you omniscience without also revealing the future, which collapses your agency anyway. The deeper move: you're demanding God create you both free AND incapable of choosing wrongly. That's not justice, that's incoherence. If God made you smarter, you'd still suffer. So which is it, really, the suffering itself?

Maybe the injustice of god is in the existance of suffering itself indeed. but let me ask you this: when god wiped out the whole population except for noah and his family, how was that just, merciful, and loving?

You're pivoting to specifics, good. But "unjust" assumes God owes creation continued existence. If humans freely chose corruption, why must God preserve them? You're demanding He stop evil without removing free will, which is impossible. So the real question: what would a just God actually owe to beings actively choosing their own destruction?

What about infants, live stocks, and nature. newborns who haven't had the time to develop intellectual agency to commit sins or to repent.

You've nailed the hardest case. But you're assuming punishment requires personal guilt. What if the flood wasn't punishment but cosmic reset, and God's justice operates on timescales beyond individual lifespans? Why assume death equals injustice rather than transition?