"Objective morality (the standard set by God who is good) exists with or without our knowledge of immorality. If we were speaking of subjective morality (as what you are describing), then your above point makes sense."

You are still not recognizing that all it takes for morality to be subjective, is for it do depend on something. Any being, including your deity, is a subjective object. Ergo, any morality it dictates would be subjective to itself. Your gods morality is just as subjective as Hitlers morality, as it is dependent on its perspective and ideals, so you have a very flawed idea of what objective morality is. You contend that gods morality is objective, because it does not rely on individual whims and ideals, but it is; and the only difference is the individual. Or the idea is that it is objective because Christians choose to value this external code en mass, but that is no different than law or society, as it would still only be the will of the majority that sets morality. Hence, your argument has no teeth, and even less bark.

"I can't win on this one. If I say to look at the larger context of the verse/passage and study the original Hebrew text, history and culture of the time when it was written, I will be making the bible say whatever it is I want it to say. However, one can also make the opposing argument. If I take a verse and read it at face value (as you have done with Exodus 32:14), not taking into account it's overall context including translation variations from original Hebrew, culture, etc. I can also make scripture say whatever it is that I want it to say."

Nice "rubber your glue" argument. The fact of the matter is that the bible never states that it was a test, only apologists are, and for speculative reinterpretation at best. It never really implies it was a test, unless one decides to read it in there. Either the bible means what it says, or it doesn't and the whole thing is not a reliable source of information, you CAN'T have it BOTH ways.

"I disagree that every single detail of a plan has to be set in stone for it to be a perfect plan. If that were the case, we would not have free will, but as you stated merely actors in a grand play that's already been predetermined."

That is the paradox. The ONLY way to have a plan that is perfect and inviolable, is to account for ALL variables, but he can't without making actions predestined. Therefore, there cannot be a plan and free will, period. You can't have it both ways, if Joe's choices can force the plan to change, then it isn't a thorough or certain plan; but merely an uncertain outcome.

"This presumes God is not dealing with the world now."

No, it only presumes that god allows some suffering for the sake of his plan. It does not require, but rather needs god not to, remain passive in inaction. If god IS acting, but still allows all of what we see, then he is EVEN MORE culpable.

"This statement assumes that because suffering and death are in the world now (as a result of Satan)..."

Which is also because of god.

"...and that God is not dealing with the world on our human timeline, then He is not good or just."

Well, dealing with it on our timeline is only necessary if one gives a flying shit about human suffering. If not, then it isn't necessary, because humans and their timelines don't mean anything to it.

"God can take care of sin in the world right this instant if He wanted too."

The fact that it doesn't, says quite a bit about it, and its desires.

"I would prefer His plan over that one as there are many that would not be with Him now if he did."

If he could not do it in a way that could redeem all people, then it isn't omniscient or omnipotent. Gods own supposed characteristics contradict itself.

"I believe it's wrong to assume that just because He hasn't administered ultimate justice yet, that He never will."

I believe it's wrong to call the system he has put in place justice. Justice is also about fairness and a punishment fit for the crime, something your god has apparently little concept of. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is inherently not just, it is actually unjust, and you will find it rather hard to make a case to the contrary.

"Adam was a man and not a child."

He was as ignorant of right and wrong as any child.

"He understood the concept of obedience where an 18 month old child would not. God gave Him a choice - obey God or don't obey God."

A. Before gaining the knowledge of good and evil, it would have been utterly impossible to understand disobedience as "wrong", as that is a moral judgement that such knowledge is needed to make in the first place. It is another paradox.

B. It is very telling that your gods standard of perfection is ignorant amorality.

C. My son has disobeyed on a number of occasions, I have never treated him with the wanton cruelty and injustice with which your god seeks to treat his children. You people need a new dad, one that will really not abuse you, so you can recover from the massive Stockholm syndrome you appear to be suffering.

"It seems that we are just rehashing our different perspectives, but a relationship with God will always be an act of faith."

Anything that requires faith alone to believe, doesn't deserve that faith.

"If you are waiting for definitive proof to begin believing, I don't think you'll find it. You will find evidence, but not proof."

Most of us haven't even found any evidence yet, just a lot of rhetoric and talking heads pretending we are awash in the imaginary evidence, but any investigation of such evidence determines that such people are merely asserting that it is evidence with no basis to do so.

"You also have the free will to choose not to believe."

No, actually, I don't. I don't choose what I have conviction in any more than I could choose what is real, one has to be convinced of a position BEFORE they can believe in it, and we don't choose what convinces us either.

"I will end my response with: Why not just try it?"

I did earlier, remember. We are still waiting on the results.

"Earnestly try to find God. Give it 30 days and try to earnestly, humbly and prayerfully put yourself into the shoes of a believer and ask God to reveal Himself to you."

No, I refuse to pretend to believe something I don't, that is dishonest and immoral. I was more than happy to pray, despite my lack of faith in prayer, and am fine with asking your god to reveal itself. I will not, however, do either myself nor your god the disservice of lying.

""Worst case, you'll lose 30 days of your life and bolster your own argument against God since you've earnestly attempted a faith in Christ."

Wrong. Most of the people here did just as you said, and yet still failed. It has done nothing, NOTHING, to convince believers that they are wrong. They merely state that we didn't have enough: faith, honesty, humility, of a open mind, of a open heart, conviction, will, effort, or all of the above. No matter what happens, I know that it will not move you one millimeter toward the mere idea that you are wrong, because I know believers already and have done this with them before.

No matter WHAT happens, whether I found a different god or died tomorrow, it would not make my argument any more capable of penetrating the cloak of crimestop believers protect themselves with.

"Best case, you'll discover a supernatural world and a gracious and merciful God you never knew existed."

Low chance, but I am open to it, if your god is willing or able to do his part. We shall see.

"Wherever you go and whatever you decide, I've enjoyed our thought-provoking discussion and wish you the very best."

I likewise enjoyed our discussion, even though we disagree, and hope for the very best for you and those you care about. May your god bless you.