Having no experience with God does not imply God does not exist. In other words, when you claim there is no God, and speak for everybody, you are denying the experiences of those who have had God experiences and are attempting to justify your mindset as universal. It is not universal. And, too, Wendy is right; your anger tells more about you than it could tell about any God.
State how things ought to be with that assumption.
Compare that to how things actually are.
If there is a contradiction between what is and what it ought to be, then you have proven that the original assumption is wrong.
But he didn’t do it properly because he didn’t state the assumption and he has more than 1 assumption. He has 4:
A1: God exists.
A2: God wants this : “God , like us, wants the best life possible”
A3: God needs this : “For God to have the best life possible, god needs to create all our lives as the best ever …”
A4: God has this burden : “It’s not our responsibility to parallel process all lives, because us, unlike god , didn’t create all this shit… That is gods burden .”
Therefore his conclusion, that God does not exist, is invalid. It’s possible that one of the other assumptions is incorrect.
“Manure of a large domesticated animal.”'–Buckwald. The irony is in the fervor of the stench. Not many who supposedly become aware of an absolute truth find the need to vilify those who may not be so fortunate as one who can’t see it. But, sooner or later all blanket statements lie by lack of inclusion.
Your testimonial does not constitute evidence or proof on its own.
I’m not interested in proving anything. I’m merely saying that your proof that “God does not exist” is flawed and that it does not prove that “God does not exist”. I gave reasons as to why it is not a valid proof.