A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[R00tKiT]

I ask the same question to theists:
With the presents of god, how do you trust your naturally evolved brain to be a reliable tool to investigate reality, and not a delusion?

Because, assuming theism, God intended to create human beings who would actively and freely seek to know Him. This entails endowing them with brains capable of investigating reality and acquire knowledge.

By contrast, there is a set of arguments asserting a difficulty in reconciling naturalism with evolution, and it doesn't take a genius to see why: one can't even pretend to investigate ultimate reality when, at the same time, they are unable to accurately justify the reliability of their senses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona...naturalism#:~:

Everything is a mechanism based on what we have observed so far.
At the foundation, the mechanism are based on the properties of a few fundamental particles.
It is also easy to explain why nature is not capable of making watches and it has nothing to do with complexity.

Going back to the foundation won't help you here: the fundamental particles were clearly fine-tuned all along to yield our universe, if that doesn't point one to a designer then it's difficult to see if anything would be enough for them. besides that, nature is not capable of anything, because it's not a personal agent. 

It sounds like you didn’t understand the question or you choose to pretend not to understand it.
If this god is omnibenevolent, why does he just sit around and watch? He doesn’t have any feelings? Is he comfortable sitting on his throne?

Whenever you utter the word God or omnibenevolence, you should take the afterlife into account before tring to make any assessment. You say : why does God watch and do nothing? Clearly this is ridiculous, God created eternal damnation in hell for the worst criminals, this is not nothing, this is just you making judgements based on the extremely short (relatively to an infinite afterlife) lifespan of the criminal or the victim.

I disagree. Allowing injustice means that the jewish god doesn’t care about morals.

I am not sure about your stance on morality. Under divine command theory, anything God does is moral, and anythng God forbids isn't. I think most religious people will accept divine command theory. 

God allows a finite period of injustice and then redresses it by an infinitely long outcome. If he were to negate injustice altogether at all times, this would jeopardize the free will of moral agents.

A rapist getting 30 y of torture doesn’t undo the rape event. It doesn’t solve the problem of allowing rape to occur.

Allowing rape to occur is part of allowing moral agents to exercize their free will. 

I have noticed that for theists, justice often means to torture the criminal. Why do you want to do that? Does it bring your satisfaction?

As human beings with limited cognition, nobody really understands justice or what it entails. We might be able to build justice systems based on some widely accepted moral axioms, but that's it. 

But you are here claiming you can understand justice and the morality of torturing criminals and rapists better than all knowing deity, this is ridiculous, and I think you know it.

And anyone arguing otherwise doesn't really understand what eternity means.

I don’t think you understand what eternity means.

True, and neither do you. That's why we defer judgment to an all-knowing deity.

---

And yet here you are on AF, a theist, bragging that your big smart brain has figured out that a god indisputably exists, lol.

And yet here you are on AF, an atheist, throwing ad hominems left and right to dodge arguments.