You’re right in that the first part can’t be used broadly to prove the non existence of God. In many ways a big portion is a rephrased PoE argument.
Alright, fair.
However, religions and the religious are all about making statements about Gods power, will, motivations; and most assuredly sets up God as a Hypothesis.
Ramshutus Razor is a mechanism for testing that hypothesis.
I do disagree slightly with your premise only in it not being complete. I personally would also consider religion about the relationship between us as individuals and God, our purpose within that relationship, and what is in my own as well as other's best interest when regarding our lifestyle here as a result. Again, just me personally though. I can accept the basic statement here still as setting up God as a hypothesis.
It’s not so much the case it refutes all Gods; but does assuredly refute all specific Gods anyone has ever put forward.
Agree to disagree, but sure. It's your razor, after all.
Take a typical Christian approach - God is love, God wants us to chose him, evil exists as a necessity to empower Good. Yadda Yadda.
So far so good.
Wouldn’t this universe better meet those goals if childhood Leukemia had a 10% better survival rate? Or if smallpox killed 1/10 instead of 1/4. What if Paedophillia didn’t exist?
If all bad things that happen for no reason allow for potential better good, would not a universe in which a potential good can always be seen?
Or take the whole nature of the afterlife: God needs us to believe in him - but why not make it a fairer choice? For example - no evolution - or better yet, make ever human know God exists, give them free will, make them know what God wants; and give them tests to show they’re trying, and don’t want to be sinners - but don’t tell them there is a heaven or hell.
Absolutely subjective I ageee - but rapidly leads you to the conclusion that this is such a shitty universe and structure for any God; that they can’t exist - except for maybe Zeus.
There's a lot to unpack here. I mean, ultimately you say yourself that it really is subjective so if this is the structure you use and then come to that conclusion then I suppose according to the razor you provide then you're following the rules and it makes sense within context. In the same way I could, and do, follow the same instruction to end up at a different result I would assume the structure is still working then. I do personally struggle with it's lack of definition and how open-ended it is, but if it works for you then cheers my friend. Touching on what you state regarding sickness, rape, etc., this is really one of the more difficult hurdles for many regarding God, religion, or just life in general. I have personally struggled with this concept as it really doesn't have an easy answer. I'll give you a quick story of mine, you can do with it as you like. In my own experience, what really changed my perspective was just that, experience. I have been in an abusive home, stalked, and had others attempt murder on my family. I came out of it with a lot of sadness, fear, and bitterness for a long time. It wasn't until much later, when I was trying to help a young woman who was facing a similar situation where her significant other was abusive and she was doing her best to reclaim her children that I felt an overwhelming amount of sheer gratitude and compassion. I personally am not great at sharing compassion either, but at that moment I came to recognize the power of my experience and while I certainly didn't enjoy what was happening at the time, I wouldn't trade it for what it gives me. I have found this to be common among those who experience trauma, that while it is still a bad thing the end product is something truly inspiring to work toward and really makes these experiences worth it. Another quick example of this is a meme post you may have seen before, where a suicide hotline becomes overwhelmed with calls and so an operator is taking two calls at once. They ask the one if it is ok to go on hold because there's another gentlemen in need of help and they easily comply. The operator goes between the two and the two who called in end up having more concern for the one on the other end of the call than themselves and kept checking in to make sure the other guy was ok. So while I personally may disagree with your end conclusion and while I personally do believe that evil is a real, necessary, and beautifying part of life it is still your conclusion to make. Anyway, moving on.
The second one is what gives me confidence that Atheism - at least in terms of major theistic themes (as opposed to zeus or being in a simulation) - is correct. I’ve been trying to come up with a collection of motivations and wills for which this universe would be the best - or even close - for 20 years; and you have two options: simple and common motivations that don’t match the universe, of Convoluted and incoherent sets of disparate goals
I'm not sure if I follow, but let me see if I understand you correctly. To guess, you would claim that the "universe", which I'll just assume is collective existence as it stands, must either have an agreed upon motive for existing or a bunch of different, potentially conflicting ones? And when you say "motivations and wills", can you be specific with me? Do you mean in a general, "the universe exists to accomplish x y z" and "humans exist to procreate and enjoy life as possible, trees exist to grow, spread seeds, and provide further nutrients for other nature, etc" or more about inherent morality regarding life as a whole such as "Killing is bad, rape is bad, consensual sex is good, kids deserve good parents, etc." sorts of statements? I apologize if I am not grasping your concept here, doing my best with the monkey brain provided.