It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Let us start with the Cosmological argument: P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2. The Universe began to exist. P3/C. Therefore the Universe has a cause Is the first premise true? Well, let's take a look. Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic, you've got a hat and a magician and if something can come into existence being from nothing, then why don't see this happening all the time? Everyday experience and Scientific evidence confirm our first premise. If something begins to exist it must have a cause, for example, a Chicken laying an egg. However what about our second premise. Did the Universe begin or has it always existed? Many atheists I've debated before have typically said that the Universe had been here forever. I quote British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic, political activist and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell when I say "The Universe is just there and that's all". First, let's consider The Second Law of Thermodynamics which states the following: Processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. In simplicity, the law tells us The Universe is slowly running out of usable energy. That is the point. If the Universe had been here forever it would have run out of usable energy by now. The Second law points us to a universe that had a definite beginning. This is confirmed by a series of remarkable Scientific discoveries. In 1915 Albert Einstien presented his General Theory of Relativity, this allowed us for the first time to talk meaningfully about the past history of the Universe. Next Alexander Friedmann and Goerge Lemaitre each working with Einstein's equations predicted that the universe is expanding. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies, empirical evidence which confirmed not only that the Universe is expanding but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). It was a monumental discovery almost beyond comprehension. However, not everyone is fond of a finite Universe, so it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence but eventually, all failed the test of time. More recently three Cosmologists- Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that ANY UNIVERSE which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history CANNOT BE ETERNAL IN THE PAST, but must have an absolute beginning. This even applies to a multiverse (if there is such a thing). Alexander Vilenkin summed it up best when he said: "This means that Scientists can no longer hide behind a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning". Any adequate model must have a beginning. Just like the standard model. It's quite plausible then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true. THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE. Since the Universe can't call itself, it's cause must be beyond the space-time universe or continuum. Its cause must be SPACELESS, TIMELESS, IMMATERIAL, UNCAUSED AND UNIMAGINABLY POWERFUL. Much like the Christian GOD! Let us move on to the Moral Argument: P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Con. Therefore, God exists. Since this is a logically valid syllogism, the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, must reject at least one of the two Premises. By "objective" morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the Holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values. This view, known in philosophy as "moral realism," contrasts with "moral relativism" which maintains that no-one is objectively correct or incorrect with respect to their moral values and judgements. Most people want to uphold premise 2 of the moral argument. After all, if there are no objective ethics, then who is to say that Hitler was objectively morally wrong? Humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. The moral argument requires only that at least some actions are objectively right or wrong (e.g. torturing children for pleasure is objectively morally wrong). Premise 1 relates to the perfect standard against which everything else is measured. God, being the only morally perfect being, is the standard against which all other things are judged. Moreover, in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values. It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not 'what we mean' by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God. Those who are divine command theorists maintain that moral duties are based on what God commands. Philosopher William Lane Craig1 puts it this way: "Duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random person were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I"d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not." In conclusion, the moral argument is a robust argument for the existence of God. It is important to distinguish between moral ontology and epistemology when engaging in this debate since these categories are frequently conflated by atheist critics. Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation. I await a response and more arguments for contribution to this discussion. Until then God bless.