Atheists, Not Christians, Are Guilty Of Making An Argument From Ignorance

This is one of the things that I do not understand about the logic of the atheists' position.  Atheists' argument is that there is insufficient proof to believe in the existence of God, and therefore, a theist is somehow wrong in believing in God.  Atheists, including my friend Andrew, try and say that, therefore, Christians are making an "argument from ignorance."  An argument from ignorance is where a person argues that because you cannot disprove something, it must exist.  In other words, atheists argue that we theists are saying, "You, the atheist, cannot disprove God, therefore, a belief in God is rational."  Yet, there are two issues with this thinking: (a) this is NOT what most theists argue, and (b) if an atheist were to put the shoe on the other foot, they would realize that THEY are the ones who are really making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.

First, Christians do NOT argue that because an atheist cannot disprove that God exists it is, therefore, rational for us to believe in God.  No, instead we provide what we believe to be very rational bases for a belief in God. We provide what we deem credible EVIDENCE for the existence of God. It is just that the atheist does not accept such evidence.  The real question is why the theist accepts such evidence, but the atheist refuses to accept such evidence.

I can tell you why I believe in God... yet, I have a hard time ever pinning an atheist down as to why they do not believe in God.  Rather, the consistent refrain I hear from atheists is, "you cannot prove it scientifically, therefore, it must not exist."  Which brings us to the second and most important point. Namely, it is the atheist who is guilty of making an argument from ignorance, not the theist.  If you think about it, when the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists, therefore He must not exist," this really is a form of an argument from ignorance that the atheists say the Christians are guilty of.  

Andrew, you say that I have not answered your questions. I believe, actually, that I have and that you have yet to answer any of my more basic arguments.  For example, explain to me:

1. How is it more rational to believe that the earth came from nothing than to believe that God created it?

2. Similarly, given the immense complexity of our bodies, of nature, and of the universe, how is it rational to believe that these systems were not designed?

3.  What is your basis for morality if you truly believe there is no God?

4. With some notable exceptions, a belief in God tends to make people better. Why will you not accept that as proof of God's existence?

5.  It seems that your standard for truth is science, yet I believe that science (a) does not answer every question, and (b) actually points to the existence of God.  Why do you believe differently?   

The Top Arguments For The Existence Of God

In an attempt to define this debate better, below is a list of what I believe are the best arguments for the existence of God. I propose two things. First, I propose that you, the atheist, provide your top arguments for the non-existence of God.  As I have said before I do not think this is possible because atheists, rather than having reasons for their belief are defined merely by their attempt to poke holes in what theists believe.  Prove me wrong.

Second, I propose that I will begin a series of posts where I talk about each of the below arguments for the existence of God.  You can then present your argument against each “proof.”  I would ask that rather than simply dismissing the arguments out of hand or old hat, that you actually provide reasons for why you do not believe each argument.

If we are in agreement, then below is the list of what I believe the top arguments for the existence of God:

1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as God.

2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument.  The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stand to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was God. 

3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of God.

4.  The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of God.

5. The ontological argument: God is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be a God.

6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God. Atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a God “works”, thus there must be a God. 

8.  The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena.  If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it.  There must, therefore, be a God.

Have I correctly briefly summarized each of the above arguments? Do you agree to this plan to address each in turn?  Are there any major arguments that I am missing?