1/ the universe encompasses everything, by definition - that’s what we mean by the term
2/ even granting that there could be “something” “outside it” (whatever that might mean) the instant it affected anything within the universe it must perforce be within the universe. There is no effective difference between there being no god, and there being a god outside the universe.
Note, by the way, that your argument does not support the existence of your god, just the existence of an entity which may or may not resemble your concept of god in any way.
1> Your understanding of the universe fails on two counts. Firstly for proponenets of the multiverse hypothesis, ‘the’ universe does not encompass everything. Secondly, the universe encompasses everything physical/natural. Anything ‘supr’ natural is distinct.
2> This has previously been addressed. There is no logical reason why an entity who is not within the physical universe cannot interact upon it. That is simply a fallacy.
3> I am not arguing for ‘my’ God, whatever that is.
I take that to simply mean: nothing that they can point to. Look at early man and his views on a solar eclipse. Their knowledge base was to small. They couldn’t see patterns. They were unaware of the relationship of the moon, earth and sun. They were ignorant of orbits, etc. They could have made a similar statement about eclipses using terms like “no deterministic variable”. They could have been of the sincere opinion that there is no cause we can theorize. And they would have been wrong. Just as claims like this are very likely wrong now. I’m gobsmacked by the hubris of people who come to these conclusions. Particularly those with science backgrounds. To paraphrase Newton, all discovery is built on the soldiers of previous discoveries. The history of science is of the absolutely inexplicable giving way to explanation.
So it’s not especially difficult for me to sympathize with the abused child in such a scenario, and readily make with a"do unto others as you’d have done unto you" sentiment; that way of looking at stuff has long been pretty danged approachable, which is why it kept popping up in secular philosophies and various religions well before Christianity hit the scene.
Enlightened self-interest is a powerful motivator that can explain plenty, but it ain’t the only thing; putting yourself in someone else’s shoes also packs a psychological punch.
This isn’t about empathy, sympathy, like or dislike. It’s about what is whether there is an objective moral law that says child abuse is wrong. Your ‘if it feels good do it’ answer cannot withstand the obvious question…“If a child enjoyed the abuse, would it be ‘good’?”
Abuse by definition is not good. If for some reason the child was deranged and enjoyed it, it would still be wrong to further his or her sadomasochistic, self-destructive impulses.
Oh I agree. But the question is why? How do you identify this as ‘wrong’?
Here is my point. Man is remarkably unsuccesful at establishing an objective moral code, yet able to identify one an objective moral law. This objective moral law exists, yet must, logically, come from outside of man. The atheist must either:
1> Deny that an objective moral law exists, or
2> Maintain that such a law is able to be devised by man.
All opinions on child abuse stem from human emotional responses and nothing else. The empathic response is an evolved neurological responses. So is the impulse to protect children. There is nothing “objective” about it. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. Human morality is an expression of evolved human neurology. The end.