Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[MindForgedManacle]

This statement is not only false but misleading. You fail to distinguish between physical laws and metaphysical necessities. For example, as currently understood the physical universe operates according to four fundamental fours and a handful of constants. Either these physical laws are the only possible ones for a viable universe OR other equally viable universes exist (multiverse) in which physical laws could be slightly different. In either case, a viable universe must conform to indispensible principles that constrain the possibilities. So you cannot have a universe that both exists and does not exist OR a universe in which mathematics does not work OR where causes do not have effects or effects causes. A universe in which the smallest particle is a Lego seems pretty unlikely, too. In addition, there must be a motivating force that makes change happen and yet keeps everything from collapsing back into nothing, i.e. “why is there something and not nothing?”

There is so much wrong here. Firstly, I don't get the point you're trying to make by bringing up physical laws and metaphysical necessities. The metaphysical necessities you brought up are the laws of thought, basically. There is nothing particularly mysterious about them, they have to be the case. If contradictions could actually happen outside of language, it would follow then that they also could NOT happen outside language simultaneously. See how that gets you nowhere?

However, you are dead wrong on causality. A possible world without causality has no conceptual incoherence as far as I can tell, and even our own universe shows sign at lower levels of causality going out the window.

As for why there is something, rather than npthing, I would tend to answer that the concept of 'nothingness' is completely incoherent. What is nothingness purported to BE? Well, not anything at all. It cannot even be referred to, because you're not refercing anything. Neither is it a state of affairs, because that presumes the existence of some THING with an ontological status of some sort, which nothingness is purported to be antithetical to.

Now there is a huge gulf between transcendent principles and a personal god, but at the same time many of the attributes of a basic god-like entity match those of the transcendent principles. As Aquinas would say, “Everyone calls this God.”

The problem is that theists will flip the ontological heirarchy. These 'transcendent principles' aren't transcendent, they're immanent. They're the necessary facts of reality, and thus anything real. If God exists, he too would have to be such because it would be impossible for him to be otherwise.