Re: yet more examples of mistaking claims for evidence.
You would think an all powerful god would provide evidence that could not be mistaken for anything else. Everyone is left guessing what this god wants.
It leads to a very big argument against God.
If *I* was all-powerful, and created tiny-beings and wanted to be involved in their life and help them: -I would want to give them clear direction -I would not want to confuse them or leave doubt that may possibly lead them down an incorrect path -I would want them to have tools to correctly identify the reality I created around them -I would NOT want to play some "tee-hee" game about keeping my existence a mystery to see who may and who may not "believe in" me. What does this even do other than feed the ego of a child-like being?
Therefore, if *I* would do things better, and this makes God out to be a child and God is supposed to be "very good" and "cares about us," then: 1. God does not exist. or 2. God exists, but is not all powerful - He helps us as much as He can, but is not capable of getting around these seemingly-childish games. or 3. God exists, but is not "very good" - He is child-like (or possibly malevolent) and enjoys playing with us for one reason or another.
It no longer leaves room for an "all powerful" being who "loves humans."
Re: Not really an argument against GOD but only some gods.
Consider the God found in Genesis 1. That God creates simply by an act of will, and creates once then moves on to the next creation. That God has no contact with any of the creation and looks on all of them equally and judges the work good.
But that God is aloof and separate. It would not care what the creation thought.
How is this not equivalent to a God that exists, but is not "very good" towards humans? Which is possibility #3 I explained above.
I think we agree, and we're just describing the same thing differently. My phrasing may have been unclear, but point #3 is intended to include the situation you're describing above.