Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable.

I have been arguing daily for about six years online. I tire of arguing with people who continually move the goal posts, who seek out the tiniest loophole to drive a truckload of Christian assumptions through, who refuse to see the implications of current psychological studies on the state of the human mind, and who refuse to see the obvious and clear impact of my Outsider Test for Faith.

I've heard it all. And it disgusts me. Christians demand that I must show their faith is impossible before they will see that it is improbable. This is an utterly unreasonable demand. I cannot show their faith is impossible. I can only show it to be improbable, very improbable. Not only that, but they refuse to see what they're doing. Let's rehearse these things with a few examples, okay?

When it comes to Biblical inconsistencies believers will find any far out explanation for them to resolve their cognitive dissonance. But, wait, after doing this with one of them there are many many more that must be resolved. Why must we show these inconsistencies allow absolutely no answer at all before they will see their explanations as improbable? But that's what they demand.

When it comes to the problem of massive and ubiquitous human and animal suffering, believers will cling to the claim that this suffering is not impossible to reconcile with a good omnipotent God, and then call it a day (per Alvin Plantinga). There is some ongoing discussion about whether Plantinga did in fact solve the logical problem of evil, but even even if he did, this suffering still makes theism improbable, very improbable. And his solution to naturally caused suffering--claiming Satan causes all this suffering--is utter buffoonery based on an ad hoc unevidenced claim. Who can even take such a claim seriously?

Science has closed the gaps in our knowledge of the workings of the world. With each gap that is closed believers move the goal posts, claiming that their God is still active in the world. In effect, until science can close every single gap they will have reason to believe. That is, either science must show it's impossible for God to exist or they can believe despite the massive onslaught of science. Because of this science some of the more reasonable believers will say God is not to be found in the gaps, but instead he is the sustained of the world. Yet look at what they've done. Either they argue from the gaps of they don't. If they do, then they must continually move the goal posts, which means they were wrong in the past. Thus arguing from the gaps is an argument from ignorance. If they don't do this, then this universe looks indistinguishable from a universe without God in it at all.

Unless we can prove we do not live in a Matrix, or are not dreaming right now, or are not some brains in a vat, then believers will opine we all have faith. And if they can get us to admit this then they drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions through that small crevice. Can we prove any of these things are not the case? Then they have every bit of a right to believe the wildly improbable things they do about a triune god, an incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, and final judgment. This is a huge non-sequitur. There is no parity here at all, even if we grant these things, which I've written on before.

There are other things to say but I'll stop for now. Others can chime in with more examples. But just think if a banker told someone that he would probably bring financial ruin upon himself if he invested all his money in one particular stock. What would you think if this guy invested his money anyway because his banker could not prove he would bring financial ruin on himself? Think on this and you see exactly what believers continually do.