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

[R00tKiT]

There isn’t anything about hell in judaism. 

Why do you bring up Judaism? Neither of us is a Jew so what's the point? 

Anyway, your point above is extremely important: the absence of hell, or any form of punishment in end times, is enough to show Judaism is not tenable as a religious belief. If there is no hell, then evidently the dramatic injustice in this life will never be redressed. It's extremely difficult to reconcile this with the existence of a just and caring deity.

I should be clear here: the problem with being a jew is not just that the belief one endorses doesn't satisfy the requirements of evidentialism. It's internally inconsistent, as false and meaningless as a married bachelor.

Christianity is a merger religion. It fuses judaism, greek religion, roman religion, babylonian, mythraism and perhaps more.
It is said that the idea of hell is mostly inspired by the greek religion.
It is possible that those ideas have influenced rabbis from other sects.

All this is not a threat to theism, as we acknowledge free will and that free agents can corrupt the divine message. Islam says that the first man was a prophet (Adam), therefore the remnants of the first prophet might have influenced all the ancient religions. 

As you can see, the plurality of religions and even their evolution can easily be reconciled with the Islamic faith: an initial divine message is passed on across numerous generations of religious communities, each generation has its own struggles, political motivations and caprices of human beings, it's inevitable that the initial message will serve as an instrument to attain worldly ambitions, but this is not a good reason to reject the existence of the initial message. 

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

You're repeating yourself: the doctrine of hell is not my solution. It's simply what's in scripture, that's why all(most?) theists believe in it. The real question is whether you should accept scripture at face value.

You ask " What would that accomplish?" which is a meaningless question,  punishment in end times obviously doesn't have any educational purpose, it's too late -according to orthodox belief- to educate someone who ignored the divine signs once they die, they only reap what they sow. A tragic outcome that shows how serious the question of religious belief is.

I think that it is important that I say this again:
Just because a guy has a sticker on his jacket that says “Hello, I am a god.” doesn’t mean that he is exactly who you think he is. It doesn’t mean that you should abandon your reasoning, your morals and just blindly follow him.

Also, I have a question for you. If this jewish god made me a god, would you be ok with whatever I decide?

This kind of argument pops up often from theist. This idea that the jewish god is perfect therefore, we should not question his decision to torture people forever in hell.
We aren’t talking about rocket science, as the old saying goes.

You're asking the wrong questions here. You either believe in the God of classical theism or you don't. If you don't, it's futile to complain about the details of some religious doctrine, such as the afterlife.

If you do, then you have a formidable argument for the existence of the afterlife:

(1) God created finite persons to exist in fellowship with himself.
(2) It would contradict His purpose to allow them to perish completely when his purpose for them remains unfulfilled.

(3) Therefore, it's reasonable to believe in life after death.

The argument is valid and sound in so far as you accept God's existence.

You asked:
Do you think God can't proved by empirical science?
I don’t know what your abilities are. What experiment are you planing on doing?

Nice dodge.

Let me be more straightforward: do you agree with the following statement "For any assertion P, P is true if and only if there exists an experiment confirming that P is true" ? (Y/N)

and the following statement : "For any assertion P, P is true if and only if P is empirically falsifiable" ? (Y/N)

Do you think that Muhammad was faking prophecy?
I think that Mohamed lived in the region and I think christianity was spreading so, he had heard about that religion from either someone in his community as he was growing up or he was already at the adult stage.

I didn't ask you about the alleged sources of the Qur'an. I asked what do you think, you, of the Islamic prophet PBUH. Did he lie about his prophethood? Did he mistakenly think he communicated with the supernatural ?

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.
Great. So, how do you know that the jewish god’s brain is working correctly?

Respectfully, that's a silly question. There is no reason to think that a mind is impossible without a brain, no one ever devised a successful argument establishing that. The fact that you think that a mind existing anywhere requires a physical brain is due to your lack of imagination, no good reason to think so.

You're not alone in this mistake, we can find articles of very abled philosophers arguing against theism on the basis of God being disembodied.

That’s correct. I am not making an argument. I am just making an observation.
You are making looking at the same thing and your claim is that god is moral.

Stopping crime does not interfere with free will. If god is omniscient, then he already knows the future.
If you are claiming he is not omniscient, then he can make a duplicate world where people are zombies (or if you like, we can call them simulations) and the only real person is that person in question.
So, any person he kills, tortures, burns wold not have real consequences.

God stopping any human action intereferes with free will, by definition. Again, if you have a serious argument establishing that the two statements:

(1) God exists and is all-powerful+benevolent.
(2) Evil exists.

are contradictory, then you can send your article to any peer reviewed jounal in the philosophy of religion and you'll instantly become the most acclaimed philosopher of all time, we finally have a knock-down argument against theism!

Unfortunately, it's not just that no such argument has ever been presented, knock-down arguments don't exist in philosophy anyway, it was even showed (in the free will defense) that the two statements are compatible.