You need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe.

Argument of Pro: Why the universe cannot be explained without God. The structure of my argument will be thus: -The Big Bang Theory -Origins of Life -Nature of Mankind 1. If we examine the very beginning of the universe, we are left with the five most simple and basic questions. Who or What? How? When? Where? Why? It is these questions that I would argue the answer points to God. For the sake of time and to get directly to the points, my focus will be on two of the five questions. How and why? "How", in particular, strives to achieve an answer with solid evidence. How do stars and planets form? How did the dinosaurs die? How did humans become the dominant species on this planet? All questions that we have gathered evidence on in an attempt to answer. From the launching of the Spitzer telescope to Darwin's first observation of finches. From observation, experimentation, and reason, we form answers. But how did it start? What triggered the Big Bang? How was it that everything within our world came from seemingly nothing? There is an infinite complex. No matter how deep we delve into the building blocks of our universe, there will always remain cause and effect. Therefore, beyond each effect we see, there is a cause. I argue that the ultimate cause is God. Such complexity and structure could not be birthed by randomness. 2. Evolution has taught us a great deal about life. But the one key feature that it misses is its own foundation. How did life begin? It is argued that all of the ingredients needed to begin life were on the planet. That can't be proven however. It is no more than a logical hypothesis established upon a branching theory that is working to become a theory of its own. Even with the ingredients, how did they combine perfectly to become form the first cell? How did the vast amounts of data suddenly establish itself in the DNA? Hypothesis upon hypothesis have been established, and none of them illogical. However, mathematics is just as much a part of our world as science. And math tells us that with each divergent explanation of the origins of life, and with each reverse engineering process, the odds monumentally increase against randomness. Anyone can form a hypothesis to explain an event. All you need is an idea and circumstantial evidence gathered from a related theory. But at which time does it become more prudent and more logical to say that a structure and a design exists? Is it not just as logical when observing the universe around us? 3. My final point turns the attention upon ourselves. The ability, capacity, and self-awareness to be conscious of the purpose or non-purpose of our existence. The very idea that we consider the existence of a Creator in many ways establishes that one exists. Mankind has always looked for a purpose and a reason. I do not think this is a weakness or coping mechanism. I think this is a result of the reason we exist. To do exactly that. To look, to explore, to try and find out why. The question of why goes on eternally. It can never stop being asked, and we as a species are obsessed with its fulfillment. The Bible has a great description in its first book, during the story of creation. It says that God created us to be like him. Genesis 1:26-27. I believe that we are akin to God, less evolved, but related. We are the only creatures that use reason and continue to evolve to this day. We advance. The rest of the nature appears to be at rest and in balance. I would argue that our obsession with structure is not a flaw in our mental capacity. I argue that it is key to our continued advancement. I would argue that we see structure because there is structure. I conclude my beginning argument. I look forward to Con's response.