The most OP argument for (defending) God

from Genetically Modified Skeptic.

My comment:

Because God says so is an awful way to describe evil - but you nailed how sloppy theological reasoning can be.  The only honest position is that we made God up from fleeting experience with spirituality. 

The question is not whether God exists. We cannot know that. It is what kind of God do we want to make up, since people are going to make one up anyway, at least for conversation. Ultimate conversion is a personal, non-falsifiable thing (as mentioned).

When building a God, if it were to exist, it must be perfectly humble rather than perfectly just. Then, instead of simply arguing that God does not exist and relying on a humanistic morality, assume that God could have no need of man to be God, so that any God-given morality must be humanistic. 

Then, instead of arguing whether God exists, we can argue how God should exist. This is  useful in pointing out not the illogic of theology, but the actual abuses in practice of it. Doing that, we can design a win-win where theists cannot hide behind the pat you on the head OP theology that you correctly cite.

Like creating the idea of God, we created the idea of evil. If we take responsibility for doing so, we can take an adult perspective on the question. We also created good and sin. When a papa crocodile eats is kids, is it evil or do we make up that it is. The same is true of eating meat or having abortions. The question is whether something works. Anything else is hubris.