One common tactic I have frequently observed among believers is that some of them seem to be in the mindset, that if I as an Atheist can’t account for something, then their explanation somehow gets to win by default. Just a few days I found myself in an argument with a believer who insisted, that the Big Bang being false means that an Intelligent agent (God) must’ve done it. He presented the following trichotomy: “we have three options available: Either the Universe created itself or it came out of nothing or an Intelligent agent created it.” now the first 2 options are impossible meaning that “Goddidit”.
Now aside from the fact that this was clearly a false trichotomy, as I don’t hold either of these 3 positions, that person was blatantly and shamelessly arguing from ignorance.
“If option one and two are negated then my option number three gets to win.”
Except of course, that I see no reason why his proposed option is to be considered an option at all. There’s no reason to assume that God did it is a viable alternative. Truth be told, the Universe causing itself is illogical, as is the alternative that it came from nothing (under certain definitions of nothing at least) but I don’t see how a timeless, spaceless immaterial mind is a better alternative than “nothing”. We have no experience with either one and as far we know, everything that exists is bound by time space and matter. Unless one can demonstrate that a being can exist without these requirements, any argument for such a being is moot. There are many alternatives for our Universe: One option that wasn’t brought up at all was an eternal Universe. Despite the Protests of countless Apologists an eternal Universe is still viable. As would be that the Universe came out of something but we don’t know what this something exactly is.
But of course we all know, that the three most hated words by Theists (and by people in general) are the words: “We don’t know”. We humans hate mystery and nothing makes this more apparent, then arguments for the existence of God or arguments for Christianity.
This can also be observed in arguments for the resurrection: They challenge us, that we need to account for Jesus being crucified, the empty tomb, post mortem appearances and the spreading of Christianity. A common tactic is the attempt to shoot down alternative explanations:
Christians have no problem rejecting the option that Jesus survived crucifixion, claiming that he was so injured, that he couldn’t possibly have survived it. They then happily go on, that it’s more probable that he was raised from the dead. They also reject every other explanation and for very good reason as they are all improbable if not impossible. However they fail to apply that criticism to Jesus being raised and then say that it is the most viable alternative in spite of the fact, that it’s as impossible as a man surviving crucifixion.
I’m sorry Christians but your explanation is not better then mine and it’s not better then saying that we have an unexplained phenomenon here. If we accept that the sources we have are reliable enough to establish the 4 facts above (they’re not) then we have at best, an unexplained phenomenon. An unexplained phenonemon is not evidence for God it’s an unexplained phenomenon.
God does not get to win by default. Your proposed alternative isn’t any more viable than mine, if it is viable at all.
Goodbye from yours truly,
Rene von Boenninghausen @Renevelation