In our world, human selfishness is becoming increasingly overemphasised. We, as a culture, put so much emphasis on our own desires that we even use it as a measure of truth. When we like certain thoughts, we tend to affirm truth claims that align with them. When we don't like certain thoughts, we tend to deny truth claims that align with them.
This is constantly seen in religious discussions. As a species, we like to assume that God, if He exists, would be like us. But not like us as a species. Rather, like us as individuals, or groups. For this reason, a lot of arguments against the Biblical God are emotional, rather than logical.
This applies to both professing believers and outspoken unbelievers alike. On the believer side, you have liberals, who will either acknowledge what scripture says, but find some way to "justify" rejecting it, or favor "reader response theory", an eisegetical method of interpretation that suggests the text means what the reader thinks it means. On the unbelieving side, you have those who will argue against God not based on evidence that He doesn't exist, but based on things they don't like about Him.
The easiest way to respond to this attitude is to simply trot out the old cliche "the world does not revolve around you". Because of course, it literally doesn't. In fact, when we so much as look at how little of human history we have had any effect on, we realise how insignificant we really are. Perhaps the people we vote for nevertheless lose an election. Perhaps we enter a competition, only to lose, failing to even place top 10. Perhaps we apply for a job, but our application is rejected. Maybe, we pursue a relationship, but the object of our desires rejects us. Maybe we select a certain educational path that turns out not to even return on our investment. Maybe we even attempt to save a life that still passes on.
All of these things are things that surround us in the here and now, in the short time we actually exist. And of course, most of them are personal. These all result in personal truths, i.e. truths that matter to us, that we still cannot guarantee a pleasing outcome to us. This, of course, means that truth does not have to please us in order to be true.
How, then, can we argue against God, the origin of truth, based on what does and doesn't please us about Him? How can we say that since we don't like God's commandments, therefore He never actually gave them? How can we argue that since we don't like God's actions, especially in the Old Testament, that He is therefore too evil to exist? How can we reason that Hell is so brutal, no God who would create it is worthy of worship?
Emotional arguments, while they strike a chord with the hearers, do not work when we simply factor in the fact that truth does not have to conform with our fallible, wicked, deceitful human hearts in order to remain true. In fact, God, in scripture, goes out of His way to refute the idea that we are His judge. He tells us plainly "But to the wicked God says: “What right have you to declare My statutes, Or take My covenant in your mouth, Seeing you hate instruction And cast My words behind you?" (Psalm 50:16-17) "These things you have done, and I kept silent; You thought that I was altogether like you; But I will rebuke you, And set them in order before your eyes." (Psalm 50:21) and "“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." (Psalm 55:9).
These are just a few lines of rebuke God has for those who think they know better than Him. Of course, to an unbeliever, these words lack authority (though in time, they will find out they do not), but should at the very least make sense. After all, even rejecting a Creator God, unbelievers should first of all acknowledge their own fallibility. In fact, anyone who has ever learned anything should acknowledge that they are capable of major error. In fact, most of us can probably identify a time in our lives when we firmly believed something we now believe was absolutely stupid. By contrast, even if you don't acknowledge God, you would have to acknowledge that if He exists, He knows better than you, possessing the knowledge you have to admit you don't.
If you do claim to be a Christian, it's even worse to run around denying Him by rejecting and/or reinterpreting His word according to your personal desires. An unbeliever, particularly of the atheistic persuasion, at least has the advantage of being able to acknowledge the implications of God while simultaneously rejecting those implications because they deny His existence. You, by contrast, acknowledge His existence, but must then take the added step of claiming to know Him better than anyone else, and/or know better than even He does.
Emotional arguments against Biblical Christianity, while practically effective in that they do provoke people to reject Christianity out of pure emotion, actually end up revealing the truth of Christianity. See, the Bible presents an ongoing struggle between man and God. As sinners, we all go our own way, rejecting His way, and of course earning His wrath for it, as well as any natural consequences those sins may bring. Every time we make emotional arguments against God, we actually prove this concept true.
See, if we were right, we should be able to show real reasons for it. We do this regularly for truths we like, don't like, and don't care about. We might not like that smoking kills, but it does, and we can, and do, prove it with evidence. Anyone who complains about anti-smoking campaigns by arguing from emotion is typically dismissed. Well, the same should be true for theological debates. We should automatically dismiss anyone who uses emotional arguments against God.
The fact that we don't, even when we know we should, shows just how much stock we put into our emotions. As if we believe the universe should revolve around us! In other words, as if we believe we should be as God.
Now, whose lie does that sound like? If you've read the Bible, and done so properly, you'd know that this is the very first direct lie the devil ever told the human race. "...You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5, emphasis added). When we make emotional arguments against God, we are continuing the age old struggle to wage war against God.
But if we have so little power here on Earth, what makes us think we have any power against God at all? What makes us think that when the inevitable happens, when we draw our final breath, when we stand before the judgement seat, we will be able to say "how dare you?" What makes arrogant lunatics, like Matt Dillahunty, think they will, for any amount of time, be able to sustain the delusion that they are "morally superior" to God? What makes liberals believe that they are Christian in anything other than name, seeing how much they seek to make God in their image, rather than let Him mould them in His?
The irony, then, is that even the way we argue against God ends up being the reason we absolutely need Him. He does exist, and there are many logical, non-emotional reasons to show that. But how pleasing a truth that is depends entirely on how we respond to Him. We could, as many throughout history have chosen to do, remain in our rebellion until His mercy runs out, our lives end, and our eternal doom is sealed. But in His grace, He has chosen an alternative: The Gospel. On the cross, Jesus received the full wrath of God for sin, enabling anyone who confesses Him as Lord, and believes in His resurrection, to be considered righteous before God. So, the question each of us has to answer is how we respond to this? Do we continue in our rebellion, even using our rebellious attitude as an argument for doing so, or do we simply accept that the God of truth is wiser than us, and every time we deviate, it is we who are in error? Surrender to truth, or live our own lies? Seems like an easy enough choice.