This becomes more obvious when you look at the converse evidence condition: a world in which a god exists and actually does act like a good person. We’d then see routine divine messaging and explanation when sought, and routine acts of help and aid and good will from on high. We’d see better, smarter design of our minds and bodies and world. The evidence a god existed and was good would then be overwhelming
Think of how much such evidence would increase the probability of such a god being real. Surely it would make a good god’s existence trillions of times more likely. Now realize the mathematical consequence of that: as that evidence is removed in our world, the probability of such a god existing in our universe must be reduced by as much as it is in that other world increased. So if it is trillions of times more likely in that world, it is logically necessarily trillions of times less likely in our world
There is no rational escape from this conclusion
Science can study anything that affects or has ever affected the physical universe. Including anything and everything supernatural there might happen to be. As with atoms, photons, gravity, magnetic fields, the Big Bang, science routinely studies things we cannot see by studying their effects. And it is logically impossible that God has no effects on the universe. To claim that would be to claim that he did not cause or design it, and that he has never done anything in it — like never inspired a prophet, never performed a miracle, never answered a prayer
Worse, it would be logically contradictory to claim science cannot study the complete inaction of God. That God does not act is a scientific observation. It has consequences. It tells us something about God—should there be one. Indeed it can even tell us something about whether there is one. Inaction is an observation. An observation of the senses. That’s evidence. Conclusions follow. What is the probability of a good God being a total do-nothing no show—not even having created or arranged anything about the design or contents of the universe, nor ever once observably acting in aid of justice or compassion? Absurdly low. Therefore, so is the probability of there being a good God absurdly low. Q.E.D
If a thing has no effects whatever on the universe, and has never had any effects on the universe, its existence and properties are literally unknowable. Belief in such can never be warranted. Least of all the more elaborately absurd a thing you then define it to be—as the more you propose is true of it, the less probable it becomes, by inevitable consequence of the logical division of the available possibility-space. That there is an unknowable superman, for example, is always vastly less probable from the moment you utter the proposal than that there is an unknowable rock or atom or vacuum. Adding the properties that this superman is ethereal, yet has all possible powers, and all possible knowledge, and designed and caused this universe, and is a good person, and yet is so thoroughly crippled by some other unknown and unfathomable cosmic force as to be completely incapable of acting to facilitate justice and goodness in the very universe he designed and governs, only reduces his probability more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
So if you want to warrant belief in this extraordinarily remarkable thing, you need evidence.
In fact a lot of it. So that there is none is rather decisive empirical proof that this particular superman’s existence is not merely unknowable, but absurdly improbable. And that’s as sure a conclusion as anything science can yet tell us about the cosmos. It’s most sure of all with regard to that one vexing attribute: being a good person. You’d have far better luck defending a horrifically indifferent superman. Though still as a remarkably-propertied superman void of evidence, even that’s still effectively impossible to rationally believe
Otherwise one is presented with a logically contradictory thesis: that a God exists who does intervene in the world (performing miracles, communicating with people, designing the natural world), that this God is a good person, and that this God does nothing a similarly empowered good person would do. Those three properties cannot logically co-exist. Unless there is some other unknown god-crushing force out there, some property of existence even God cannot overpower or remove, that completely and thoroughly cripples God’s power to speak and act, even to the point that he speaks and acts less than a kind but mentally and physically enfeebled human being does—and thus is not a god by any definition. It’s extremely hard to even come up with a logically possible God in all this; and the effort would entail a God so improbable no rational person should ever believe in it
וועלכע איך ברענג ארויס אין מיין לעצטיגע 
