Is it likely that God exists.

First off: I keep on making the same points because I have yet to hear a sound refutation.If the universe began to exist, which modern science and the big bang theory support, and whatever begins to exist has a cause, the conclusion: "The universe has a cause" follows neccesarily. Neither of these premises have I heard an effective refutation of. Multiverse number is unsourced. Oh my bad. The number I picked was from leonard susskinds book: the cosmic landscape: String theory "The illusion of intelligent design." And the Problem is, These 10^500 worlds are not neccesarily actually existing, for these are merely possible worlds consistent with M-theory. Though the issue of Boltzmann brains is still a thing, (it is far more likely that we should be observing a much smaller area of order, and the most likely observer that would appear, would be a brain which arose from a quantum fluctuation, with delusions of an outside world) the formulation of the fine tuning argument is by no means some horror show like the meatball argument. (A better comparison to the spaghetti argument would be Dawkins infamously bad, "Central argument" in the God delusion) If you are going to interact with the fine tuning argument, don't do it by using poor analogies like the spaghetti monster. The Fine tuning argument; (in deductive form) 1. The fine tuning in the universe is due either to chance, necessity, or design.(if you have some other 3rd option, I would like to hear it. Add it to the list so I can interact with it as well.) 2. Not Chance(Incredibly, ludicrously improbable) or Neccesity(The constants and quantities are entirely arbitrary, as these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. They could have been ANY other value.) 3. Therefore design. Please interact with the argument in ITS ACTUAL FORM, as opposed to some pastiche of it made by "New Atheists" like dawkins or hitchens. puddle quote:Once more a flawed analogy. The analogy between the puddle andman fails critically because in the puddles case, the hole would fit him no matter what. In the case of Humans("life"), we can ONLY fit in an incomprehensibly narrow range of values. defense of kalamwhatever begins to exist has a cause: Now their are reasons besides just intuition to accept the validity of the first premise, besides merely the intuitive warrant. If things could come from nothing, that is the lack of everything and anything, it would be an utter contradiction. Nothing hasn o traits or properties, as it is not anything. By definition, "Nothing"could not have the property to bring matter into existence, otherwise it would be "something", having a trait. Also, empirical evidence supporting premise 1 exists: if something come from utterly and absolutely nothing, we would have to expect to see this all of the time, on all levels, for there is not anything that constrains nothing, for there is not anything to constrain! and as for the conclusion being "Cause, therefore God.", look carefully at the syllogism I introduced in my first argument. If you are going to object to the cause being God, interact with that, not one of your ill-begotten analogies. And as for the proof of the spaceless being, if the argument succeeds then it proves that there must have been a spaceless, timeless cause whichc caused the universe.