What is the strongest or most compelling argument in your view for the non-existence of God or gods?
I can't add much to Luis' answer. I don't make such arguments except regarding gods described incoherently, that is, with internal contradictions, as with the tri-omni god. That god can be ruled out. So can the one who said that it wants to be known, believed, loved and obeyed, and also created the "kinds" rather than a last universal common ancestor. That god has been ruled out by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, which, if falsified, would reveal the presence of a deceptive, superhuman power and intelligence, not the deity of the Christian Bible.
I also reject claims about deities existing outside of time and space and being undetectable. That's the definition of the nonexistent. That describes everything every imagined that never existed. The whole idea of such deities existing, thinking, or acting all imply that they occupy time. So, all claims of supernaturalism are rejected. If it exists, it is part of nature, it exists somewhere at some time, and it is able to interact with other things existing in nature. The description of the supernatural is also incoherent for that reason.
And unfalsifiable claims about deity's are irrelevant, a form of apatheism. Claims about noninterventional gods like the deist god are irrelevant, or as some say, neither correct or incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong."
you can't actually capture an image of what is dynamic and really has no form. it has action but no actual definitive form because it is constantly in motion in any and all directions.
I would call that an incoherent statement as well. How can anything be said to exist and change through time (be dynamic), yet have no form or substance? What's changing and what does it mean to say that something is changing that is indistinguishable from the nonexistent, which also have no form or substance, but also aren't understood as changing.
If there was no bad, you would never experience good. You would be just existing. You just as well be a rock.
So how many times do you propose reminding people of how good it feels to not be suffering? I think I got that message in childhood. Yours is one of the attempts at explaining the theodicy problem that doesn't convince.
I don't see anything wrong with allowing suffering for good reason. We do that when we go to the doctor, or take our children to them...
Especially when surgery is involved. I don't understand then, why you think the "concept of an All-loving God is highly problematic".
In world ruled by a tri-omni god, there should be no need for doctors, and no reason for suffering to exist. Physical suffering can be helpful in a godless universe, as can fear, but neither has a place in paradise. You probably know that Old Testament myth are often explanations for that suffering. The ancients understood that it need not exist if their god was as powerful as they thought, and would not exist unless it was just, meaning that it is always explained as God's wrath against a disobedient mankind. That's what the Garden story explains - why we don't live in paradise, why we sweat and toil, why we suffer in childbirth, and why we die. We had it coming. Several other stories explain what seems like undesirable aspects of reality in these terms, such as the Tower of babel story. Why did God make us unable to understand one another? Same thing as with the apple - he reached too far and needed a reality check.
I'm just pointing out here that the problem of suffering in the face of a tri-omni god was on the ancients' minds as well. They understood that an extra element needed to be inserted for the claim of omnibenevolence to stand - this is omnibenevolence because it's just.
if humans are superstitious animals, why isn't everyone a believer in gods?
Critical thinking allows one to escape that kind of thinking. All children and most adults fit your description, but se adults don't. And it need not be a belief in gods per se. I invented a religion as a young boy before I knew what that was (we were raised without gods or religion). I invented an invisible alien that I controlled my younger sister with for a few weeks. It only speaks to me, and could harm her. I got the idea from The Flintstones (The Great Gazoo, but less friendly). I wouldn't be able to do that to my sister now. She developed the necessary defense against indoctrination as well. She simply doesn't believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support, so no superstitions or gods for her, either.
What source do you trust for an accurate account to decide whether the Prophet is crazy, deluded, or a liar?
What difference does it make? I only care if he was correct about channeling a deity, and I have no reason to believe that did. What actually motivated him is of little interest. He might have been sincere and believed what he said whether mentally ill or not, or maybe he knew that he was making it up. The world is the same either way, so the answer is not useful. They ask similar questions about Trump, and my answer is the same. Does he believe he won that election (crazy, deluded)? Does he know he's lying (liar)? The law might care, since the crime charged might depend on that, but I don't care either way. Nothing of relevance in my life changes whatever the answer.
I don't thnik I can prove the Baha'i solution of the problem of evil in this environment.
There is no satisfactory answer to the theodicy problem for the critical thinker. It is a proof against the claim of the existence of a tri-omni deity.