If god is real, god is amoral.

Does anybody disagree?

    No

I mean, I would say it is a non-sequitur, and the fact that you didn't specify a theistic god rather than a deistic one (or really any specification that would help), I think that it is only logical to conclude that there is no rational justification to accept the conclusion.

So what rational reason do you use reject it?

I am addressing the soundness of the argument rather than my position, but let's go under the hypothetical that I don't have my own views and have just learned about the god concept.

The default state after having been exposed to an idea is pure agnosticism and the argument you presented is not sound, so I am not going to stop suspending judgement on the issue.

That's akin to saying that because the default position about Schrödinger's cat is that it is agnostically alive and dead equally, that therefore it is wise to be agnostic about it being feline or not.

But should we not also suspend judgement on qualities of the god concept until such a time that an argument can be soundly made? Sort of being agnostic on the qualities as well.

Sure, a concept can have some inherent qualities to it, but it does not seem you are arguing that the god concept is necessarily defined as amoral but that a consequence of the inherent qualities makes a god amoral if it exists.

No. Almost any story involving the gods shows some of them to be immoral. The creator of all things is amoral. 

Please explain how a morally benevolent god fits this reality.

You realize you are arguing that god is amoral, right? That means that both a benevolent and a malicious god would be counters to your OP (and even a god that is concerned about right and wrong but is neutral on the matter would be a counter), not just a benevolent one.

I also don't have a burden of proof yet, as I said I am suspending judgement (which means I did not assert that there is a benevolent god either). I can remain unconvinced that god is amoral without being convinced that god is benevolent, malicious, etc.

No they wouldn't be, they both contradict reality.

You need to make an argument and not just an assertion, otherwise there is no rational reason to accept anything you are saying.

From: The Book of Job: From An Immoral To An Amoral God

                 By James A. Colaiaco

 The God that Job had heard about from tradition is different from the God he experiences. He is not a God of justice but of absolute power, arbitrary and unaccountable to humans. In fact, God is silent on the question of divine justice. But the question of God’s justice is central to the Book of Job. If God wished Job to understand that his justice is beyond human comprehension, he never expresses it. If God wished humans to understand innocent suffering as a test of faith, why did he not say so? Would a benevolent God torment humans merely to test their faith?

Orthodox religious interpreters could never find fault with God. Nevertheless, the text makes clear that God is the cause of Job’s innocent suffering. Satan, the “adversary,” is merely God’s instrument. When God speaks from the whirlwind, he completely ignores Job’s innocent suffering. God was responsible for the deaths of Job’s ten children, for reducing Job to penury, and for afflicting him with a horrible disease. Indeed, God is more concerned with celebrating his own power than dealing with the question of justice. The suffering Job attacked God as arbitrary, malicious and tyrannical. Interestingly, according to Elie Wiesel, one possible meaning of the name "Job," is "where is my father?" In the end, God concedes that, unlike Job’s friends, Job “spoke the truth about me.” Contrary to the claims of many religious interpreters, there is no evidence in the text to support the notion of a loving God. I urge those interested to read the text critically and draw their own conclusions.

Then who defines morality?

If God is the all knowing all powerful creator of everything then everything that happens is in accordance with his will. This means every child rape, every malicious murder, everything, is in accordance with his will. That makes him amoral by any reasonable standard.

The problems I see here are

1. the expectation that God is "loving"

2. that the human definition of "loving" or "just" matters when trying to understand God's behavior

3. that foundational premise that the book of Job is definitively a factual and literal telling of an event depicting the actions and mind of God

4. that human "morality" is the same as a set of principles of right and wrong which would guide a divine being

No it’s in accordance to the monster that committed those heinous acts, ever heard of something called free will?

Why would that make god amoral and not malicious? It could be that god is concerned with what is right and wrong, that god has a moral sense and yet is not benevolent. God, in this hypothetical, might allow good in the world for higher order evils to exist and to maximize the pain from when evil is done unto others. This god would be, by definition, not amoral. He would be concerned about right and wrong, he just doesn't choose to maximize rightness/goodness.

Same to you.

Religion can generate a lot of money.

10:00 AM    Daystar TV
Believer's Voice of Victory with Kenneth Copeland
You can live how God intended—free from all sickness and disease!

Kenneth Copeland is worth $750 million. So much for the eye of a needle.

It's too bad pastor Marcus Lamb (only worth $10 million) couldn't have watched this. He died from Covid-19 on Dec. 2, 2021.

However Daystar listed his show today as new with original air date of 4/08/22.

I disagree.

Well stated.

I'm not arguing a position here, so no, I don't. I have to address arguments made, as otherwise I would be suspending judgement despite evidence, but unless I choose to take a position then I am not obligated to provide an argument.

No, it wouldn't. You would have to demonstrate how a lack of interference or inaction constitutes amorality.

That's like asking how the definition of an adjective constitutes possessing the adjective if one repeatedly behaves in the way of the definition.

God knowingly made the brains, bodies and life events of each individual that commits the crimes against humanity that Double_R describes.

I disagree, at the very least initially, for the same reason I 'think TheMorningsStar states.

The lack of clear definition, in 'what you claim is evil, or 'why.

cool

I didn't say God is evil, I said God doesn't give a shit and overall is right around the exact middle between evil and good.

Allright then,