1) Where did the universe come from?
Gosh, you have an answer to the question of where the universe comes from?
That must mean atheism is false!
I mean, if you have an answer to that question, and I do not, that must mean god is real and that therefore atheism is clearly false because you proved the existence of god by demonstrating that your god claim provides an answer to a question!
Well done, sir!
Now let me ask you a question:
Why does God exist rather than not exist?
I have an answer to this question. You see, God was farted into existence by a giant space goat. Since I have an answer to this question and you do not, this proves that the space goat is real, that the space goat created God, and that you are wrong to not believe in the space goat.
I already know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “But nobody worships the space goat, therefore the logic is valid when I apply it to my conclusion, but not valid when applied to your conclusion!” This is a logical fallacy called special pleading. If the logic of your argument is valid, then it does not become valid or invalid just because we apply it to conclusions that you don’t happen to like.
Do you know why you are using a logical fallacy to deny the existence of the space goat?
Because you are a bad person who wants to do bad things. You want to deny the space goat because you do not want to thank Him for creating God.
Here’s the thing: whether or not my space goat claim provides an explanation for God is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the space goat is real. When I make this argument, I am committing a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences. I am claiming that the space goat is real because I do not happen to like the consequences if my truth claim is not real (I no longer have an explanation for something, and not having an answer makes me feel bad).
This is the exact same fallacy you are committing with your “Well, how else do you explain the universe?” argument.
We can explain the existence of the universe without your god or anyone else’s god, but that is utterly irrelevant. No one owes you an explanation for the universe. You still have the burden of proving that your God exists whether or not anyone can explain where the universe comes from.
My Viking ancestors once believed that thunder proved Thor using the same logic you just used. My Japanese ancestors once believed that earthquakes proved the existence of a giant magical fish, also using the same logic. The fact that my Viking ancestors could not explain thunder was not valid supporting evidence for Thor. The fact that my Japanese ancestors could not explain earthquakes was not valid supporting evidence for Namazu.
Anytime you argue “I can’t explain A, therefore B is true,” you are only proving that you can’t explain A. You still have the burden of proving B.
2) Where do you find your identity?
This is yet another appeal to consequences. Whether or not your God claim can explain anything about my identity is irrelevant to whether or not your God claim is true.
Yes, I can find my identity just fine without believing in magic, but that is irrelevant. You still have the burden of proving your truth claim that a god or gods exist.
3) How should we live?
This is yet another appeal to consequences fallacy. This time, it’s worse, though. Christians are statistically more likely to be racist than atheists. Christians are more likely to favor mass torture as national policy. Christians are more likely to think less of women, more likely to be homophobic, transphobic, and oh yeah, Christianity lacks the moral language to explain to the majority of Christians why toddler concentration camps are a bad thing.
Religiosity correlates with crime rates. Populations that are more devout have more violent crime, and populations that are less devout have less violent crime. The more Christian a community is, the more violent crime it has.
Granted, correlation does not equal causation. For example, it’s possible that crime causes Christianity. Perhaps something about being a violent criminal makes Christianity more appealing to people. Or perhaps, a third factor causes both crime and Christianity. For example, it is possible that lack of education causes both higher crime rates and higher religiosity.
Regardless of which way the cause & effect relationship goes, your argument fails even if we ignore the appeal to consequences fallacy underpinning it.
If you want to say that Christianity is true because it teaches people how to live because you think an appeal to consequences is valid logic, then shouldn’t we conclude that Christianity is false because it leads to people making less moral life choices? The list I gave above is supported by science, and it is far from a complete list. For example, I didn’t list average marriage length nor the rate of unwed teenage pregnancies.
4) Where does your morality come from?
Again, whether or not your claim about God produces morality is irrelevant to the question of whether or not your claim is true, and as demonstrated above, Christianity leads to less morals rather than more. So if you think the above argument is valid, then you should abandon Christianity immediately and become atheist so that you can become more moral.
Or you can retract your argument because it’s based on bad logic.
5) Where will you go when you die?
If I want you to believe that electrons are real, I simply show you the evidence for electrons. I don’t have to suggest that you will be tortured after you die if you do not believe in electrons.
If I want you to believe that elephants are real, I simply show you the evidence for elephants. I don’t have to suggest that you will be tortured after you die if you do not believe in elephants.
If I want you to believe that traffic laws are real, I simply show you the evidence for traffic laws. I don’t have to suggest that you will be tortured after you die if you do not believe in traffic laws.
If I want you to believe that digital watches are real, I simply show you the evidence for digital watches. I don’t have to suggest that you will be tortured after you die if you do not believe in digital watches.
If I want you to believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, I simply show you the proof for the Pythagorean Theorem. I do not have to suggest that you will be tortured after you die if you do not believe that the Pythagorean Theorem is true.
But if I want you to believe that Christianity or Islam are true, then I have to imply that you will be tortured after you die if you do not believe. This is necessary because neither Christianity nor Islam have any valid supporting evidence.
Speaking of Muslims, do you fear going to the Muslim Hell if you do not believe in Islam?
No?
Do you fear being reborn as a poor person or perhaps even an animal if you do not believe in Hinduism or Buddhism?
Do you fear missing out on the really good parties in Valhalla if you do not believe in the Norse religion?
Here’s the thing: most religions are in the same boat your religion is. They need to use argumentum ad baculum fallacies for the same reason you have to use threats to support your truth claims.