ok well i think we just disagree.

"god" is typically, or almost always, used to refer to a being that can act outside of the rules of time, space, and physics. We cannot do any of that. We may be indistinguishable from a god to a dog but that still doesn't make us gods, it just makes us remarkable from the dog's point of view.

Going to the moon is not interesting from a gods point of view. Neither is altering DNA or understanding a tiny bit about how the universe works. Those things are not impressive to any creature that know and does more than us. They are only impressive to lesser creatures, assuming a dog or polar bear can be impressed by us, which they might not be.

And god-like in appearance does not make one a god. The Wizard of Oz had the appearance of a wizard but he was just a man who put on a show. Not a wizard. Not a god.

compared to my dog i am a god. compared to all other animals we are god like. i mean we can go to the moon and alter our dna and we understand how the universe works mechanically speaking. isn't that god like compared to what a squirrel is or a polar bear?

I think one of the biggest problems of all of these arguments can come from this part of your statements:

"Therefore a being, beyond our experience, must exist..."

The fact is that even if this contingency argument held any water at all, it would still only point at a thing that must exist. There is no reason to think that it must be a being of any sort. To assume it is a being just shows that belief is taking precedence over logic and reason yet again.

I think that you are begging the question in the traditional sense. You state "if no other gods exist..." and that is an assumption that we are gods before you even get to the question mark at the end of your question. If no gods exist then we cannot be gods because no gods exist. If we are gods then gods do exist because, by definition, we are gods.

What you need to ask, without any assumptions, is this: Are we gods?

No.

Atheist do not typically attempt to prove god's non-existence since that is and always will be an impossible thing to do. I can no more prove that god does not exists than I can prove that a unicorn does not exist. Atheists simply sit around trying to live their lives and sometimes someone comes up to them and presents an argument to them that there is a god. And each time so far for every atheist, the argument is never sufficient to start believing. I don't try to show anyone anything. People show me their "evidence" and it's been totally insufficient so far. I do not attempt to prove anything because I make no claim that there is or is not a god. To put it simply, I hold no belief in a god in the same way that I hold no belief about the number of fingers you are holding up right now; To hold a belief in that would require that I have some sort of information of which I have none at all.

It is distressing to be told over and over to believe in something for which there is no compelling evidence.

This contingency argument is a bad argument. So are the rest.

2 Logical ramifications for positing that the universe exists out of a necessity of it's own nature: 1/No beginning, it has to have always existed. 2/The particles/matter the cosmos is arranged as such necessarily and so there is no possibility of a cosmos that could have been different than the one we know as reality.

"So the denial of premise 1 amounts to this: X exists; X can only exist if Y exists; and Y does not exist. This is absurd."

Actually, Peter, "X can only exist if Y exists" IS premise 1. And so those who deny P1 deny that, and therefore, accept something like "for X there is no Y".