“Perhaps it is worth extending this discussion a little bit further. Consider the question of the explanation of the existence of natural reality: why is there natural reality? Those theists who suppose that there are gods who created natural reality may suppose that they have an explanatory advantage here: there is no similar story that atheists can tell about the existence of natural reality. However, while it is true that there is no similar story that atheists can tell, this does nothing to support the claim that theists here have an explanatory advantage. Why not? Look back to the discussion in §5.10.2. The story that atheists tell about natural reality can be just like the story that theists tell about causal reality. If, for example, theists say that causal reality exists because gods must exist, then atheists can say that natural reality exists because it must exist. When we look at the total picture, there is no explanatory advantage that accrues to theists; rather, theists and atheists agree that causal reality exists because something must exist, but disagree about what it is that must exist. The existence of natural reality is not better explained by the suggestion that it is created by gods that must exist than it is by the suggestion that natural reality itself must exist: if all that we are considering is the existence of natural reality, then the introduction of creator gods is a fifth wheel to the explanatory coach.”