Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Angrboda]

Forgive me for failing to elaborate. It was not you in particular to whom I was referring (though it was), but rather atheists in general. It is my personal conviction that atheists are one of the following:

A) Insincere in their unbelief
B) In denial
C) Deliberately lying out of anger/spite
or D) Demon-possessed

It might surprise you to learn that, at times, atheists view theists in much the same light, that they are either lying, stupid, or crazy — thus the frustrated responses such as those by people such as Sionnach. You may not understand this, but that seems a natural reaction toward people with radically different beliefs. The idea that they just might not understand the other person is quickly removed from the table when misunderstandings ensue; to be quickly replaced with liar, lunatic, or loser. Your suppositions, such as they are, are a projection of your frustration at dealing with people whose ideas make no sense to you; so you force them to make sense by casting them in these molds. I'm not an atheist, but I rather doubt your characterizations here are accurate descriptions of most atheists.

---

Why should nothing ever produce anything? What reason or means could nothing ever have? What good are virtual particles if they don't exist in the first place? There is no way around it! It is futile to try, and stinks of desperation.

Argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

It's not that I don't understand how, it's that I know it can't as surely as I know gravity exists or that water is wet. You say it's arrogance, I say it's just common sense. It is actually you who are operating from a position of arrogance, and you who are saying the very thing you quote above about God; you don't understand how He could exist, therefore He couldn't/doesn't. I know you will say that you don't discount the possibility for God, but you sure seem hell-bent against accepting a common sense explanation.

It's still an argument from ignorance unless you can demonstrate — there's that word again — that there is no alternative explanation other than God (or God and an impossibility). I'm not even talking something from nothing here — we simply don't know what preceded the big bang. Unless you can demonstrate that no other explanation for the existence of the universe but God is possible, you have an argument from ignorance, and your conclusion that "Goddidit" is worthless. It's as if you were taking a math test, and you come across the question "2 + 2 = ?" You're stumped by this, so you look at a neighbor's paper and notice that he's stumped as well and has yet to write in an answer. The test proctor calls time and you quickly scribble "5" figuring any answer is better than no answer. You get your test back the next week and find you got zero points for your answer of "5." You go to the teacher and complain that the other guy didn't even have an answer, so you should get some points for your answer. Your teacher is unimpressed and refuses to change your grade. That's the argument from ignorance. You claim you should get points because the "other guy" didn't have an answer, that's a fallacy and your argument is invalid. (Logical my ass.)

It is not enough that the idea of an omnipotent god created the universe is consistent with what you know, and that the other guy doesn't have an answer; you need to demonstrate that this god hypothesis is the right answer. This you have not done, though claiming to have done so multiple times.