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

[R00tKiT]

But why is your only solution to throw people into a lake with element 16? What would that accomplish?

First of all, it is not my solution, the doctrine of hell is common in all Abrahamic religions at least. Secondly, the obvious purpose of hell is to accomplish divine justice. Read again, divine justice, not your definition of justice, or that of any finite being with limited cognition. 

Do you deny that you have limited cognition? (Y/N)
Do you think you can apprehend justice and morality better than all-knowing being? (Y/N)

All this is obvious, so I am not going to spell it out again.

Why don’t you sit with him and talk about the problem?
Get to know him. Get to know his issues. Try to give a hug once in a while.

Why would I sit with a criminal or a mass murderer to know his issues? unless you're referring to some medical case where the perpetrator is mentally unstable and can't be held accountable, I don't know what you're talking about.

Nature is observable. Evolution theory along with other sections of science all come together to support evolution theory.
So whatever we observe, we try to follow in the path of science rather than claiming aliens or gods or alien-gods did this and that and that they visited the Earth and built monuments for humans or built books for humans or telecommunicated via a subspace satellite array from dimension X directly into the brain of Jesus and Mohamed and Boy George.

Such stories about Jesus and Mohamed and Boy George are wonderful works of science-fiction.
You won’t be able to demonstrate that these aliens or alien-gods and gods have visited Earth.

You're so horribly confused here. God's existence and the historicity of Muhammad are two separate issues. And your stance on either of these issues is not clear so far. 

Do you think God can't proved by empirical science?
Do you think that we can't prove anything that isn't observable?
Do you think that Muhammad was faking prophecy? 

You believe in the jewish god and you believe that this god’s brain works correctly and that he designed your brain to work correctly.

So, we both think that our brain is working fine.
So, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
Is your point the following:
“If there is a jewish god and he designed our brains, then this is a guarantee that our brain is functioning properly but if our brain is designed by nature, then there is no guarantee that our brain is working properly.”

Yes, precisely that. And it's obvious isn't it. Without a creator, there is no guarantee that our brain apprehends reality in any reliable way. The argument is straightforward: if the evolutionary process is not the intention of a creator to bring about brains capable of apprehending reality, then there is no good reason for us to assume our brains are reliable.

You pointed out to our various scientific accomplishments as evidence: this is pragmatism. The reliability of our brains shouldn't be contingent upon whether our mathematical models are correct. And needless to say that our science was mostly wrong until very recently.

Yes, nature is the sum total of stuff around us.
Yes, life forms that we find on Earth have self-replications abilities. So do certain molecules.
I’m not sure what you mean by
But by saying "nature does have capabilities" you're simply commiting a fallacy of composition.

Because only elements of nature have capabilities, life forms have capabilities for example. But it doesn't follow that nature as a whole has capabilities.

But none of that matters in this discussion as you don't believe in a god in the first place.

I am going to have to correct you on that.
It matters a lot.
We need to talk about these things to the fullest extent possible.
We need to push these discussion to its limits.

You won't be able to provide some internal inconsistency in the doctrine of heaven or hell. You already made gratuitous arguments like saying people will feel bored in heaven or won't have anything to do after some amount of years etc. This is not a serious discussion of these doctrines.

I am not making an argument.
I am just saying that if someone has the ability, and it is easy for them to prevent a crime, yet just sits and watches the crime and does nothing to stop it is an immoral being.
Therefore, the jewish god is immoral.

You say you are not making argument, and immediately after that you write a premise (A being that doesn't immediately prevent a crime is immoral) and a conclusion.

And I already told you why your premise is wrong: it negates free will. You may say why won't God create a world where there is free will and no evil, and the answer would be : we know from literature that this world is not a possible world. And omnipotence doesn't entail creating a logically impossible world.

I’m not sure why you are talking about free will. You seem to be saying that you wish a rape to occur, that you choose not to interfere.

You're confused again. The discussion is not about me, lol. You're here arguing, a being with finite knowledge, that an all-knowing God has no reason not to prevent crime immediately. This is a negative assertion. Good luck proving a negative assertion.

Your inability to substantiate that claim beyond simple moral condemnation is enough to reject your argument from evil. 

The court system is one thing. Military action is another thing. It is obvious that the USA and allies do not wish to start WW3.
Can we punish head of states? Yes. In the city of Laval and Montreal, the mayors were caught and prosecuted.

Source:
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/former-laval...-1.1273711
https://corruption.net/canada-montreal-a...ion-probe/
https://corruption.net/canada-former-mon...orruption/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-montr...GB20130617

I don’t see any reason to not shoot women soldiers. Why should there be a gender bias?
During warfare, the enemy is an enemy.

It's not about gender bias, Islam doesn't acknowledge women joining the military in the first place. 

And it's clear that the Russian court system can't do anything about Putin's aggression. Maybe NATO countries are justified in not intervening to avoid a global war, but it's clear that there is something inherently wrong in the justice system that allowed for the invasion of Ukraine to happen.