>>17869721
>It's easier to argue for a very simple God with only a few defining traits
A God that is not omnibenevolent is simpler, it's literally one less property he must have. And you don't need to argue for every single thing but just enough where you can reasonably expect divine revelation from this being and then everything else you can take from there. Also I haven't read your link but it seems they are misinterpreting things. If you disable parts of the brain dealing with fear then that just means you no longer concern yourself with what happens to you in general. It shouldn't impact what one thinks is just a fact of reality, as in it doesn't become less real but more like less of a concern maybe?
>it means that God and humanity don't value different things
Well if that's the case then what is good according to humanity? To me it seems you're saying whatever is popular in current year represents that. God would have to be beyond our arbitrary whims and desires if he were a standard, which he is according to Abrahamic tradition. I expect that most people like ice cream and if we just assumed that our standards are the same then it must become God's morals too. But this just seems unsatisfactory and even harder to justify. God's objective morals come from the fact that he created everything and knows everything. That would make him a much better judge of what is maximally worthwhile I would think