You dismiss the OP because you say I offer no reasoning.
No, I dismiss it because it is contrary to reason and logic. The term "follows from" doesn't mean "is one possible result" but necessary consequence. Your statement was flat-out wrong, and even if you don't realize it, you've admitted this by allowing for alternatives that make your inference logically unjustified (which it clearly is).
Perhaps what you meant to say was that you think it likely (for whatever reason(s) you do) that if we and the universe are the product of a supernatural creator, then it seems to you to be likely that the reason for this creator's actions are as you say. But this is entirely different from claiming that given your premises your conclusion "follows from" them.
I think it's obvious myself, but instead of asking any questions, you just go off on a self-righteous huff
Logical validity is essentially mathematics. If you claim that adding to irrational numbers yields a rational number, or that you can divide by 0, etc., I don't need to ask question to see you are clearly and obviously wrong.
You made a formal inference. In order for this to be valid (and validity doesn't mean right; it's even less stringent), it must be true that on the assumption your premises are true, your inference
must be true. As this isn't so, you can't even claim logical validity, which means that your assertion is necessarily unsound and laughably wrong.
The fact that you think asking questions could possibly matter here is even more problematic. Had I claimed "if you are a believer, you are a delusional, evil psychopath", I would hope you wouldn't need to ask any questions to realize my assertion is clearly baseless as it is utterly devoid of validity (my inference is not logically valid, as if the assumption is granted, the conclusion need not be true). You don't seem to be aware of what validity entails, or what logical entailment even is. Which is understandable (it's not as if logic comes naturally to most, if any). But this doesn't change that I would be as logically justified making the claim "if you are a believer, you are a delusional, evil psychopath" as the claim in the OP.
saying that if I didn't offer the evidence right away, I'm obviously wrong
You still don't get it. It isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of a clearly wrong, logically invalid inference. Evidence would matter if you changed your claim or made an argument such that you somehow managed to make your conclusion follow from your premise given some set of added steps. But you don't seem to realize what this involves or why this is what matters (or why you are clearly wrong). You could be absolutely right about the motivations of your supernatural creator, but it doesn't matter because the "follows from" is just plain wrong. Again, it's the validity of your argument that is at stake, not whether your position is correct (your argument is wrong, as it doesn't even meet the status of logical validity).
