The general idea, I understand, is that he is concerned about what kind of a world we want to make for ourselves. Free will and all.
His Darkness kills all people. No exceptions. No matter what good you create it will eventually become an evil through privation. Free will is irrelevant to the determination that God is probably evil.
It is fair for a hungry fox to judge us on the evidence too. As much as it is capable of doing.
Does the fox comprehend world wildlife conservation? Habitat protection? Climate change?
The one thing that separates us from the animals is that we are capable of levels of abstraction and recognizing that we don't know the bigger picture, and that we have a choice to withhold judgment in light of that.
This is just pointing out that an inductive argument for an Evil God is not a deductive one. That doesn't undercut it's power that God is probably evil.
Sure, with your other inductive reasoning in daily life it could be true that you are wrong despite all evidence. There could exist an alternative explanation for the facts which you cannot access, which only if you could would explain how you were mistaken.
That doesn't change the likelihood that you are correct in your determination based on what is available to you. The human conception of evil fits God. The human conception of good does not. It is far more defensible to claim that God is evil than to claim that God is good. Everything good from God can be shown leading to evil through eventual privation. There is no defensible resolution to the problem of evil for the good God. At best...those solutions rely on question begging.
Why would we be so sentient about the world, but then act like dumb animals when it comes to recognizing our own shortcomings?
I'm not convinced that its inappropriate to label God as evil.
He kills everybody. He destroys worlds. The last star in the universe will burn out and it will become a frozen waste resulting in information death.
Saying that God created everything is no defense if His purpose was to torture everything and eventually destroy it.
(To clarify my position. I am an atheist, so I don't believe God exists (though I have no way of proving it), but I do believe the God construct is more internally consistent than atheists often acknowledge. What I challenge is not truth or falsehood, but badly-formed arguments, either way.)
I would say that the conception of a good God cannot be adequately defended and that an evil God is perfectly reasonable to accept or not depending on whether you felt it was worth your time to think about.
I also find it perfectly reasonable to say there is no such thing as God, that the conception of God is incoherent, and/or discussion of God is futile.
If you stood, yourself, before a mighty being claiming to be your God then He would never be able to prove it to you if you were a picky person.