Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

False.  We can't even say that our own universe required a beginning or else is past eternal, much less a universe we know nothing about.  

For any existing universe, the two propositions, P :"A universe began to exist" and Q :"A universe has an eternal past" are mutually exclusive,  one of them must be true, Q is simply non-P. This is the basic law of excluded middle. 

Unless you're willing to deny the most basic rules of logic and delve into sophistry, you are forced to pick one of these propositions. 

You have presented neither deductive nor inductive argument for their mutual exclusivity. I will reserve comment until you support your assertion. Failing, that, it can be dismissed.

You are simply wrong in your claim that any universe that did not begin to exist must be past eternal.  How would you even know such a thing?

 Splash your face with water and re-read what's above.... I guess ?  

Exactly how is reading an unsupported assertion from you a path to knowledge?

It's possible to argue for benevolence on the grounds of the ability of creation to fulfill good deeds, our inner moral compass, the maternal instinct, etc. All these mundane observations can serve as premises to prove some property that a deity likely has. Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children.

[emphasis mine]

As pointed out, the rule is not valid in this context and it doesn't justify thinking it unlikely that a malevolent deity would create the maternal instinct.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth in more ways than one.  If the existence of evil is compatible with a benevolent deity, then the existence of good is compatible with an evil deity.  You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other, as both depend upon the same argument.

You say, "You can't carve out a greater likelihood for one or the other", as if I didn't give plenty of reasons already for why the balance tilts towards benevolence.. This is not rocket science, we evaluate this "likelihood" based on what we observe. And what we observe is that peace, empathy, sense of community, our inner moral compass, our sense of justice, etc. are all the default state of our species. Going to war is an exceptional occurence, perpetrating genocide and other gravely immoral acts is exceptional, etc. 

My argument for compatbility serves only to prove that theism is coherent, regardless of its truth value. Proving that benevolence is the actual state of affairs -if God exists- can only be done by inference, i.e. by infering God's character based on his creatures'.

You continue to lie in the face of clear evidence that what you are saying is false. You claimed that you could prove benevolence -- not coherence, benevolence -- based upon the premise that you could rule out a malevolent deity on the basis of it being unable to give what it hasn't got. Nowhere did you argue that a preponderance of good makes a benevolent deity probable, and for the reasons pointed out, it wouldn't. Just as the inductive argument from evil fails on account of things like the free will defense, the inductive argument from good fails by similar means. Having made an argument that failed, you now lack the balls and integrity to stand behind the argument that you made. You're simply engaged in historical revisionism, as anyone can see by examining your prior statement, and you are now shamelessly trying to save face by lying.