This is one area that is difficult to proceed in because of the vast difference and distance between our world views.
We both have presuppositions. You presuppose that you can pass moral judgment on God. I presuppose that God is so vastly transcendent that the things I don't understand are just that, things I don't understand, but that God has His reasons and a higher good that He does not reveal.
Peace and grace.
NOPE. Wrong again sir. YOU presuppose your theology b/c that is the only way you can continue believing this nonsense.
We can certainly get into presuppositional apologetics if you want to. I was a presuppositional Christian apologist for nearly 10 years. I studied under Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen and know all of those arguments quite well b/c I made them myself (nearly every day) when I did what you are doing now online. But you know what? I changed my mind when I discovered that those arguments cannot be rationally justified. Unlike you, I put truth above dogma and pre-commitment (which is actually what you have b/c you didn't just 'suppose' your theology, tentatively, you fixed yourself to it). That is what religious superstition requires.
Now, I have not 'presupposed' that I can make moral judgments about your alleged invisible 'God' thing (nor do I think any other non-believer here has). I simply DO, and CAN make those moral judgements b/c, as I said before, morality is about the well being of conscious creatures and the minimization of unnecessary harm (and I have challenged you to show otherwise). It's funny though that you readily admit your position here:
I presuppose that God is so vastly transcendent that the things I don't understand are just that, things I don't understand, but that God has His reasons and a higher good that He does not reveal.
WOW. If you can't understand something, why do you keep pretending to (acting like you know this invisible alleged 'Yahweh' thing is moral when you don't know that)? So you have made a PRE-COMMITMENT to your theology, when only a few posts ago you told a story that would have us believe that this was NOT the case and that you were somehow convinced (by evidence or argument) that your particular version of Christianity was the way to go (aka - not presuppositional), after being 'the furthest thing from a believer' [to paraphrase you]. So which was it? Did you start with your conclusion (making a "presupposition") or were you convinced of it by some means of evidence? It sounds like you can't keep your stories straight (which btw is evidence of delusion and/or self-deception).
FYI, there is no such thing as an "I don't know" worldview. So please stop attempting to misrepresent the view of those who do not share your gullibility. Atheism is simply the opposite of theism (the belief in a god). That is all that is required. It says absolutely NOTHING about any other subject of philosophy or science. If you care anything about truth you will represent opposing positions properly. That is called being intellectually honest. You owe yourself at least that much. Thank you.