Consume Product

Points 1 and 2 are opposite of one another. If you assume God exists, then you can argue that he is an immoral God. If you don't assume he exists, then you cannot say any such thing. Pink unicorns (which don't exist) have no properties, or if you prefer, can both be immoral and moral, black and red, true and false simultaneously.

If you want to argue God exists and he is immoral, then congratulations. You are now a theist.

But regarding morality, you must establish what your foundation for morality is if you want to judge the God of reality.

Is it your own personal opinion, like "murder is bad because I said so?" If that is the case, then God has his own opinion on what morality is, and your opinion is not better than his. Now you are simply arguing that you prefer pink over blue -- a matter of preference. And your preference for how God should use his powers is irrelevant. He gets to do what he wants to do with his power, you get to do what you want to do with yours, end of story.

Suppose you could somehow find a source of morality that isn't a matter of opinion and could somehow contain a being such as God. You'd be the first! So please, publish your system of morality so we can all look at it. We'd examine it looking for any contradictions or inconsistencies, just like you try to poke holes in our system of morality. We'd also question every assumption you make, just like you do to our system. We'd be on equal grounds, finally, and we could attack your system to defend ours, just like you are attempting to do (but fail, since you have no system of morality other than personal preference.)