Best Argument Against NSM

The best argument I have seen against non-scriptural monotheism (NSM) is the apparent odds against its being true. NSM (at least my version of it) is dependent on:

1. that an afterlife exists
1a. that the afterlife is just

2. that an alleged Being to whom we are accountable exists
2a. that he communicates

#1 is a toss up; 1a is unlikely; #2 and 2a are toss ups. i.e.

1. There is no evidence either way for the existence of an afterlife. So for all practical purposes, the probability is 50%.

1a. Judging by what we've seen of this life, justice does not appear likely. Happiness and unhappiness do not appear to gravitate to those who deserve them.

2. Even if a personal Supreme Being is proven by TAG, it does not necessarily follow that either he or any of his subordinates cares about us.

2a. After testing this hypothesis for over 40 years, and asking for error correction nearly every day for about 30 of those years, I still can't judge its probability.

Those accumulated odds offer about a 7% chance of winning at best.
Whereas an atheist can bet on no afterlife with 50% odds.

A monotheist can bet on 1 plus 2 with 25% odds. But if he is a scripturalist, he is betting against 1a. Rather he is betting that, regardless of how he behaves, he will be rewarded just for betting on the right God. That of course diminishes his odds, but assuming he bets right, he still has to deal with all the unjust things his scriptures tell him his God does. Those plus all the other improbabilities of scripture greatly outweigh the improbabilities of my version of NSM. And even if the scripturalist is right, he is stuck for eternity with an unjust God.

The atheists argument is sound. So I must point out a distinction between NSM as a philosophical position, and my particular version of NSM, which is a religion. As a philosophical position, NSM is no more than basic monotheism. It says nothing about God's alleged attributes - all that omnipotence, omni-whatever stuff is unknowable, therefore not addressed, nor is his alleged intervention in the world.

Basic monotheism is supported by TAG and all the classic arguments for God, which if not acknowledged as proof, at least make a God highly probable. So to the atheists I propose NSM as a philosophical position, without the religious "if this" and "if that" to object to.

Like I said, that's the best argument I've seen. The best tactic I've seen against NSM is to simply ignore it until it goes away - which it will until people start seeing it as their best option. Atheists won't see it until they get smart enough to see the rationality of TAG. Theists won't see it until the evils of scriptural theism become obvious enough to make them look at their scriptures rationally. I just hope it happens before Muslim terrorists cause a nuclear holocaust.