God probably exists

Simply speaking, without God, humanity and the universe would exist simply as a world of natural reactions and chemicals. In this world the substance of all creatures would be that of only natural chemical matter. If life did begin to exist we would only be in a sense like machines or robots. Robots and machines are obviously not aware of their existence. They cannot think, reason, imagine or exist more than just a compilation of different parts. Without God we would simply be an arrangement of various substances of naturally formed matter. This would not account for any ability to be self aware of our existence.First, I like to add that God is the most aware thing that will ever come around if it/he/her existed. Because you say it reqiures a higher source of awareness to make a aware critter, then who created God? Who created him? I didn't think much of this argument for this reason, and that auto-save failed.Next!----------------------- The representation of the moral argument that I will be using is derived from various moral arguments, but the formation is self devised. P.1 In absence of God, naturalism would be the next possible cause for morality. (By lack of other cause) P.2 We possess a moral code in which we discern moral facts by intuition or sense. (By observation) P.3 This type of objective morality requires a basis or source. (By necessity) P.4 Naturalism could not account for this source. (By definition) P.5 God can be the only other explanation for objective morality. (P.1) P.6 God is the only possible source or basis for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.5) P.7 God is the best explanation for objective morality. (P.1, P.3- P.6) C. Therefore God exists. (P.1- P.7) I am puzzeled. I don't know why as Nautalism could amount to morals. But Pro gives a vague explantion of "If it is not this, IT MUST BE THAT.". But that isn't the problem. Underlined is God. The reason why I did that is because Pro has to prove it was God and not Zeus or 65 other Gods. Naturalism co-existing with moral objectivity, SB-P Naturalism cannot account as a basis for morality. Keep in mind that I am talking about a morality in which we naturally posses, within our being. The very idea of naturalism accounting for this type of morality refutes the whole basis of what objective morality is. No moral code as such can be naturally formed, because the very premise "natural", refutes the whole idea. This type of moral code needs a basis. In fact it necessarily requires it. Every part of our body therefore would have had to have evolved, which would include our minds. In other words naturalism would have to entirely create us. With this fact in place there could be no way that objective morality could exist. For why would it? We would lack the necessary tool to make right/wrong judgments. Naturalism could be the only possible source, and naturalism is not a valid basis at all. Thus morality would be subjective. If there is no greater power, than there is no basis for this type of morality. [1][2][3] I have to drop this for now.Attack pointsAP1Is there other gods?Like I said about the creation of God, Something had to create him and give him morals(Is that even possible?) as his endless love. It is logically impossibe to create something out of nothing and that something goes on to form the universe. But could there be some smaller gods that could have helped him out?AP2Unreilble evidence.The only thing that is even close to provide evidence is the Bible.Which in of it of itself is poor evidence for concradicting facts that we know now.