Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

 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?

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.

How does he even know it's benevolent?. How does he know something that looks benevolent to us when in fact it's part of some far grander malevolence? How does he know God isn't simply tricking him into thinking it's benevolent because it enjoys deluding people?