In or Out or Neither

I am an Atheist. I don't believe there are any gods. I don't believe there are any gods IN the universe or even OUT OF the universe, so I vote for "neither". But if there WERE gods, would they exist IN our OUTSIDE of our universe? This is a good question, for Christians oft times explain away the lack of evidence for their gods by claiming they don't live in our universe. If this notion can be shown to be nonsense, then they are forced to put their gods back into the REAL universe where it's always open season in hunting down false gods.

In the evolution of gods one can notice that religionists keep hiding them further and further away from reality to ensure no one goes there and sees there ARE no gods! They keep pushing the gods further and further away. They pushed them from being visible, walking & talking in a garden, to invisible. They pushed them from living in local forests in rocks & trees to the tops of inaccessible mountains. Then they pushed them from mountaintops clear up into the sky- probably about the same time frame mankind learned how to climb mountains. Then the sky not being far enough away, the religionists pushed them from the sky into outer space. And now outer space- i.e. the entire universe- isn't space enough to hide the non-existence of their gods. Now they want to push them out of the universe entirely into fictional universes that don't even exist. The point here? As science advances into more and more previously unknown areas, the gods that used to live there get evicted into even more remote locales, the goal being to always have an excuse as to why no unbeliever can ever see or find these gods.

What these people are admitting by their actions is that there ARE no gods, never WERE any gods, and never WILL BE any gods. By removing their "gods" from the universe- from reality- they have in effect admitted what us Atheists have been claiming all along. Thanks!

Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of - and nothing means nothing. If you are tempted to ask, "What's outside the universe?" - recognize that you are asking, "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of "something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms; nothing is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just another kind of "something" - it is nothing. Existence exists: you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on top of it, or behind it. Existence exists - and only existence exists: There is nowhere else to go.

-- Nathaniel Branden

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/classic.htm

The next rabbit out of the hat is usually God is outside the universe (see part of the parent Cosmological Argument), which is just nonsensical: if the Universe is the totality of what exists, you can't have anything outside of it, or it wouldn't be the totality of existence. Well done, the rabbit just suffocated inside your magical Fallacy Hat.

However, for the purposes of the discussion, let's say that there is an Outside to the Universe. If the arguer wants to avoid turning the argument into mass of fallacies analogous to a double helping of spaghetti with extra Bad Logic sauce, he has to admit that his argument is a false one unless he allows other things besides God to not have been caused.

This is where it gets really funny.

The existence of a personal creator as described by Craig presupposes personality, which presupposes complexity. Even Deism presupposes personality, of a sort.

Now, let's bring out Ockham's Razor again, and see if we can't give Craig's argument an opportunity to get rid of that beard. As a reminder, it essentially says, don't make things any more complex than they need to be.

For the argument to remain logical and not simply a big old sack full of assertions, impersonal objects have to be admitted into the group of things which are existent without a beginning. If they are not eliminated in some way - and the argument doesn't hold together if they are - the possibility that the Universe had a naturalistic beginning must be admitted into the equation.

Whoops, Ockham's Razor just slipped! Kalam has had its throat cut.

If a natural explanation is not eliminated, it is the correct one until proven otherwise. I don't see any proof of extra-Universal entities which never began coming any time soon.

Whew. Kalam is nearly as riddled with bad grammar as the Ontological Argument.