On Non-belief

[FallentoReason]

The argument is called "...from non-belief" for a reason...

Yes, the reason being that the fact of apparent non-belief is problematic for Christianity. As I've shown, it's not problematic.

It really says something about his apparent omnibenevolence then, doesn't it? You'll have to concede that he's not all-loving or that he doesn't exist (as per the OP) if he really is all-loving and wishes for every human to be able to go to heaven.

Concession made. I've argued against omnibenevolence myself. Hard to get omnibenevolence from the flood.

I'm not required to prove it or show what this way is.

If it's a necessary premise of your argument and you want your argument to stand, then yes, you need to support it.

God, being omniscient, already knows this way.

Again, this statement presumes such a way exists.

If by "proven" you really mean to say it needs to be shown that it's something possible, then by definition it must be possible, because God in his omnipotence would find it possible, unless he isn't omnipotent. These two attributes he has means there is a *possible way*, unless of course you want to concede that he doesn't have one or both attributes.

Here you'd need to support that the Bible asserts that God is omnipotent by this definition of omnipotence. It doesn't.

Then why call him "god" John? It falls incredibly short of a being who is perfect if it lacks the intrinsic properties to a) have perfect morals through his omnibenevolence and b) be able to produce a perfect creation if it's not omnipotent.

You should have conceded all of this at the beginning in order to refute the argument. I can only assume I've chipped away at the "god complex" you believe in if you only now just admit God isn't a god but a less perfect creature with signs of mischevious intentions. It really makes me wonder what drives people to worship such a monster who, on its own, made it known to us that it isn't the definition of perfection.