You can't have the loving god of christian theism who passively observed the tsunami; that is a contradiction. Cofty
I passively watched someone "hurt" my cat. I love my cat. There was no contradiction.
Now you want to play the card of God's supposed omnipotence to counter that. If I was powerful enough to find a different way to avoid the suffering of my cat I would have done it. Sure.
But just as you are saying it's different because of the omnipotence factor, I am saying it's difference because of the omniscinece factor.
We are not omniscient. God (if he exists) is omniscient. Therefore by definition we would be lacking information since our knowledge is only a subset of all knowledge.
Once that is combined with my reasons for being a theist in the first place (we can go there if you want), I am prepared to humbly accept the reality of not having the full information.
You can insist that an intelligent person MUST make a decision with limited information all you like. But as long as there remains doubt as to whether we have the full information then your OP is flawed. And logically that doubt must exist.
So then we can move to probablility. But that is a different conversation as I think you and others have acknowledged.
To me the primary weakness of your argument is that you insist we must make a decision against theism based upon very specific criteria that you have determined must become the sole evidence to be presented. First of all I simply don't accept that. Secondly, I am perfectly aware that a being of lower sentience can misinterpret actions and inactions of a being of higher sentience. This is not theoretical. You dislike analogies, but the simple fact is that we can demonstrate the reality of that. And not a single person disagreed with that reality. It was only the application that you didn't like, because you feel so certain as to where humans are on the sentience scale. It's shear misleading hubris as far as I'm concerned.