Broken Thinking Skills & Pointless Discussion

Taq writes:What I see is injustice caused by men, and no supernatural deity doing anything about it. Again, the universe is indistinguishable from a universe where God does not exist.

mike the wiz writes:A good reductio-ad-absurdum is that the inventor of the trilobyte's eye if he was evil, should cause a lot more suffering and life should be like a horror movie for most people. After all if Hitler has average IQ and can cause tremendous suffering to millions, wouldn't we expect something more spectacular from the inventor of the universe than the results that can be explained as coming from random-chance alone?Just for starters I myself with a slightly above average IQ, can think of more inventive ways to get evil pleasures met such as the absence of all anaesthetics from nature. Children should be getting chased and eaten regularly by Freddy Krueger and all sort of monsters designed to slowly and sadistically kill children after instilling great horror.But when something happens like a child is killed by a wild animal, any rational person with a high enough IQ can see that this is simply an aberration caused by the bad luck you get from random-chance-probability figures which could predict this happening occasionally.Here is the logic that BUSTS your position wide open;Random chance alone is a better explanation than an evil God. But you also at the same time want to argue that it is evidence of an evil God.So which is it? Do you believe God is not there, and that is why bad things happen, or do you believe the evidence is consistent with an evil God being there?A true logician can admit that you would expect a different outcome than that of random-chance, if God is taking pleasure in these incidents.You want to argue both yet it seems like a reasonable contradiction.I admit I CAN believe in a world where the answer for bad things is that God is not there to stop them(hypothetically my mind could see it makes some sense), but I would not then argue that it fits with God being evil, because that would be the same as admitting there is evidence of design by looking at the figures for bad luck incidents.Are you forgetting your position is atheist?All you can do is argue that God as a sadistic God, would somehow be happy with the evil produced by random-chance figures, but we know this is not true because an innately evil person is known to have an appetite to do evil. To say that a serial killer would be content to hope and wait on his neighbour randomly falling off a cliff and dying rather than obeying his instinct to murder him if it in his power, is an absurd argument in how WEAK it is.

mike the wiz writes:How can we even know a universe can exist without God?

Your first assertion is also an anecdotal-fallacy when you say, "I see no deity doing anything about it".
​
Why would that be consequential?

What can your prejudiced, subjective, biased view of God's existence, really mean if one person genuinely does experience God in their lives but you do not?

Such an ignorance would be bare-ignorance, like that of the man that did not see the crime. If you are scientific as your side proclaims, then why would what you see even matter to you? You also don't see any black swans.

And also, in relation to the bible's claims it is also a fallacy-of-irrelevance because it is clearly mentioned in the New Testament that God will judge at the end of time and will allow the wheat to grow with the tares meaning that God is not judging each injust action in the present.
​