God exists

In regards to argument 1, I agree that causation and contingency are similar, however there is a subtle difference as contingent implies a constant sustenance of contingent items. This argument can therefore argue for a God that is actively involved in the Universe and not a God that is no longer involved in this universe. You make a valid point that it seems somewhat unsatisfying to answer fundamental physical phenomena such as gravitational attraction with 'the universe caused them to be so'. However, you cannot deny that the existence of the universe DID cause these fundamentals to exist no matter how unsatisfying it sounds. Nonetheless, such a response can only apply to things that are fundamental laws in the universe, this is because these are not caused by individual things in the universe and so cannot be explained on more specific levels. For example, if I am asked: 'Why are plants green? ' It would be silly to respond: "The universe caused them to be green' This is because there are more specific explanations for the question, namely that plants contain chlorophyll that reflects green light. It would be unhelpful to answer on a big-picture scale. Nevertheless, in regards to fundamental physical phenomena such as quantum fluctuations, they do have a cause insofar as they require a vacuum, actual space-time, to occur within. The whole principle of the universe that it contains all space-time and it is definitively impossible to have space-time outside the universe. So I would simply state that the existence of vacuum is the cause of quantum fluctuation. Therefore the credibility of my argument is maintained, as even the atheist's favourite example of quantum fluctuation does actually have a cause, or at worst a reason for its existence. 'Yes, and fire can only occur in presence of oxygen, but oxygen is not cause for fire. Sound can occur only in presence of some sort of medium, like air, but this medium is not cause for sound-your vocal cords are. You are mixing 'cause' with 'requirement'. The fact that particles pop into existence only in magnetic or electric field, does not lead to conclusion that this electromagnetic field is a cause rather than requirement. ' I disagree, a cause can be something that provides the reason for certain phenomena. Oxygen is ONE cause for fire, but it is not the only cause. I think this disparity in reasoning between us is because we take 'cause' to mean different things. Either way, I could easily replace the word 'cause' in argument 2 with 'requirement' and my argument would still be a valid argument for God's existence. Disputes over my correct use of 'cause' do not derail my argument. In response to your rebuttal for argument 3, I think I should have made it clear that I wasn't really referring to planets and life because you can just play the evolution card or postulate that the universe is so large that an earth-like planet would most likely exist somewhere. However, you say that the universe is a necessary product of the laws of physics. Are you saying here that the laws of physics caused the universe to exist? This is an absurdity as the laws of physics are within the universe so they would have had to cause themselves, which is a paradox. I am arguing that the probability of a stable, life-permitting universe like our own is so infinitesimal that it is unreasonable to suggest that it came about by chance. An example would be that the weak nuclear force had to have a very specific strength in order to allow life to come about anywhere in the universe because heavier elements than hydrogen would not form. The strength of the weak nuclear force has been constant everywhere in the universe since the big bang (1) which means that the strength of the weak nuclear force was determined at a single point in time, thus the probability of it having the exact required strength is minuscule. "Unless this perfect being doesn't exist. If perfect being would exist, then it would be perfect (hence the name 'perfect being'). But if this perfect being doesnt exist, then it simply doesnt. You are assuming from start that this perfect being exists and so, if you are correct, then it is a perfect being and therefore must exist. The very idea that such being does exist is what needs to be proven. " The crucial thing is that a perfect being MUST exist by definition. It is a contradiction to say that a perfect being does not exist, as existence is a necessarily attribute of a perfect being. Saying that a perfect being does not necessarily exist is akin to saying that bachelors are not necessarily unmarried. So when you say 'But if this perfect being doesnt exist, then it simply doesnt', you are postulating a logical impossibility. I believe your issue with argument is that I seem to assume that a perfect being exists. However, this is not the case. My single starting point is that I can conceive, in my mind, a perfect being. From here, I can use logic to prove that this conception of a perfect being exists in reality. "If perfect being doesnt exist, then it cant have perfect existence, because it doesnt exist. " Then it would not be a perfect being then; a perfect being HAS to exist by analytic logic. You keep mentioning that a perfect being could not exist, but then would not be a perfect being. Thus saying that a perfect being does not exist is a contradiction. Looking forward to your reply! (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (apologies for the wikipedia source)