Board index ‹ God

[Alto Ditch]

I would love to see your evidence for God.

[jimwalton]

The evidences for God are plentiful. They don't prove God, but they show that if we are following the evidence to infer the most reasonable conclusion, the existence of God is by far the more reasonable conclusion.

Cosmological argument: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang. Science can give partial explanations, but it has no complete explanation, nor even a full explanation. God qualifies for the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the terminate of explanation, whereas nature does not. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe is strange and puzzling. It can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. Theism has the stronger case.

Ontological argument: If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible. If he does exist, his existence is necessary. Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary.

Teleological argument: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed. Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose, patterns, regularities, and order. Therefore it's logical to assume the universe could be the product of purposeful design. Again, science can give a partial explanation; theism can give a full explanation. There is reason to consider it plausible or even probable that a rational agent was responsible for the laws of physics and the process of evolution.

We also know that there is great uniformity in material objects confirming to the laws of nature (gravity, nuclear force, etc.). This motivates us to wonder if a natural process or an intelligent source is the more likely explanation. That there is something rather than nothing is strange enough, but that they all have similar properties and powers passes strange—and also that they were uncaused! Theism (as an intelligent causal agent) is the more complete explanation. The existence of such order speaks of the probably of the existence of a powerful, intelligent, purposeful, and orderly source.

Analogical argument: Everything we humans produce for a particular purpose is designed for that purpose by someone intelligent enough to have designed it. The universe has many characteristics that seem like it was produced for a particular purpose. Given its beginning (Big Bang) and the chaotic nature of such a process, we could logically conclude that the universe would be chaotic. But it's not. There is order rather than disorder. It's more reasonable to conclude that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.

The argument of other minds: I can't prove that other minds exist, but it's logical to believe that. I can't prove what other minds are thinking, and yet it's reasonable to assume they are. The bulk of my commonsense beliefs about others minds is more probable than not, on my total evidence. Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence.

Argument from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). The explanation for such mental states is either personal or scientific. The explanation for nonphysical mental states is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Again, science can explain part, but not all. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.

Axiological argument: Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). If those words mean anything, there must be a standard by which to define and measure them. And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal. Therefore theism is the more reasonable conclusion than evolution for survival (which has nothing to do with "good" or "bad").

Linguistic argument: Language is effective only if endowed with meaning. Meaning is definitively non-material; it is neither energy nor matter. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from energy and matter. Language demands a non-material source, since meaning is non-material. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. The most plausible source for that is a non-material entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own but vastly superior.

God makes sense of the existence of abstract entities.
God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the complex order in the universe.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

If we are drawing the most reasonable inference:

• Is it more reasonable to assume the universe brought itself out of nothing (the dimensionless singularity of the Big Bang theory) or that it was brought about by a causal agent outside of itself?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our intelligence and ability to reason came from an intelligent source or a blind one?
• Is it more reasonable to assume the orderliness and teleology of the universe came from purposeful planning or random process (the Big Bang), natural selection, and genetic mutation?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our consciousness just happened to arise or that it was caused by a previous consciousness?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our personality came from a personal source or an impersonal one?
• Is it more reasonable to assume our sense of right and wrong came about by survival instincts or from a moral source?
• Is it more reasonable to assume informational data (such as DNA) happened to arise by natural process out of random data or from a previous source of information?

Theism wins every one of these. It doesn't prove God, but if we are honestly pursuing where the evidence leads and inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism is the far stronger case.

And what is the argument against theism that is so much stronger in your mind? I would love to see your argument for whatever it is you believe. (I'm not asking you to prove a negative; I'm wondering what your case is for whatever you believe in contrast to theism.)

[Alto Ditch]

I will first list some of the fallacies and other mistakes I did manage to spot.

"Cosmological argument: The universe had a beginning. The idea of an infinite universe is absurd. " Without providing evidence showing that an infinite universe is impossible, this is an argument from personal incredulity.

"Something outside of the universe had to have caused it to bang. " This is not necessarily true. Quantum fluctuations may have caused the universe.

" Science can give partial explanations, but it has no complete explanation, nor even a full explanation. God qualifies for the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the terminate of explanation, whereas nature does not. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. The existence of the universe is strange and puzzling. It can be made comprehensible if we suppose that it is brought about by God. " God-of-the-gaps: science cannot currently explain it, therefore God must have done it. And I wonder how you calculated those probabilities.
​
" If God doesn't exist, his existence is logically impossible." How does the conclusion follow? I have no bread in my lunchbox ( bread in my lunchbox does not exist), but this does not mean that it is impossible for my lunchbox to have bread in it.

" If he does exist, his existence is necessary. " What do you mean by necessary existence?

" Since we know God is not impossible, he must be necessary. " Depending on your definition of God, I would say he is logically impossible, but that is a whole different discussion. So I grant you, that he is possible. For this conclusion to logically follow from your two premises, your first premise must be "If God is possible, he exists". Since you didn't make this premise, your final conclusion does not follow.
​
" Teleological argument: We don't know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that was not indeed purposefully designed." For this statement to work as an argument, you would first need to demonstrate that evolution is guided by a mind.

" Many parts of the universe exhibit purpose, patterns, regularities, and order. " I agree with you on, "patterns and regularities. I don't fully agree with you on order, and I will elaborate on this later. Also I do not at all agree with you on purpose. How did you come to the conclusion, that there is purpose to the universe?
​
"Given its beginning (Big Bang) and the chaotic nature of such a process, we could logically conclude that the universe would be chaotic. But it's not. There is order rather than disorder." I would say the universe is rather disordered than ordered, because we have billions of galaxies each with each with billions of stars, planets and asteroids flying in them. But a well ordered universe, like a giant homogeneous hydrogen cloud would not allow for life, meaning that humans need some chaos to live.
​
"The argument of other minds:... Using that analogy, then, belief in God is rational, being more probable than not on the total evidence. " Which evidence?
​
" Since there is evil in the world, there must also be good (or we wouldn't know evil was evil). " Seems like a complicated way to say "there is good in the world", but okay.

" And if there is a standard, there must be a source for that standard. That source must be moral, objective, and personal. " Why can't human empathy be a source? Or egoism?

After reading until the end, I wonder if you implied here, that good and evil have to be objective? Because if so, I can at least get why they would require an objective source.
​
​
" Argument from consciousness: Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). " This entirely depends on your definition of "nonphysical". If you go by "not caused by physical processes", then you are wrong: Feelings, thoughts and emotions are caused by the brain, a physical object.

" no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical. Again, science can explain part, but not all. Therefore the best explanation for now of nonphysical mental states is a personal one. " As far as I know, science can currently not explain how consciousness arises, but this is again an argument from ignorance (God of the gap).
​
Language does not have intrinsic meaning. We learn to interpret sounds and signs in certain ways. Language demands a person making a statement and another person interpreting it.
​
​
" I would love to see your argument for whatever it is you believe. (I'm not asking you to prove a negative; I'm wondering what your case is for whatever you believe in contrast to theism.) " This forum is not really the right place to discuss such things, but I materialist (based on the lack of evidence of the supernatural) and believe the big bang happened and that the theory of evolution is highly accurate based on their respective body of evidence.

[jimwalton]

I'm not going to discuss your critique of my argument until I see yours. Only then can we weigh which argument has more strength.

> This forum is not really the right place to discuss such things

I'm curious why you asked the question, then. Since this is a forum for discussion about such things, it would seem the most appropriate place for a debate about the evidences for the existence of God.

> I materialist (based on the lack of evidence of the supernatural)

There is at least some evidence of the supernatural, as I listed. What evidence do you have that materialism is the most reasonable conclusion, given what we see? I need to see your case before we can compare the two positions.

> believe the big bang happened

I do also.

> the theory of evolution is highly accurate based on their respective body of evidence.

I do also.

So let me see the substantiation of what you believe that creates a stronger case than what I've presented. Then we can discuss them. This is abductive reasoning: which body of evidence presents the stronger case. We can't compare unless you present something.

[Egg Head]

It’s not about proving god. If you showed as you said that god was the more reasonable conclusion, you would be getting millions in prize money and collecting Nobel prizes. But you haven’t done that and I’ll explain why.

Cosmological argument: you’re inserting god in to that argument yourself. Your biggest most glaring problem is this is the argument from ignorance fallacy. You claim science doesn’t know this or that and so must be god because you think it fits. This is definitionally fallacious.

Ontological: No, we do not know god is not impossible. We haven’t proven god to be possible or impossible. There’s a difference.

Teleological: I think you know what I’m going to say. Argument from ignorance fallacy. Below that was more argument from ignorance.

Analogical: you’re just positing assumptions that because it seems designed to you, it must be designed. This is just a misunderstanding on your part of how evolution works. The things that did work tend to did out of cease to exist and the things that do continue on. Your leap to design by some intelligent agent is still baseless. The appearance of design does not mean it was designed.

Your argument from other minds analogy doesn’t make any sense. Your still just inserting gods into all of these without proper evidence or reason to support it. You use the word assumption quite a lot, which shows a glaring problem with your reasoning.

Consciousness: this is an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

Axiological: I have no idea how you even made the jump to theism here. This is just plainly a bald assertion.

As you go on, I’m sorry and I’m not trying to be mean, but it’s almost every other sentence that you’re engaged in fallacious reasoning, and some of the time it’s completely nonsensical. You don’t get to just insert god wherever you choose because you don’t understand how something works, or you’re unsatisfied with the current scientific explanation, or lack thereof. This is wholly unreasonable. I encourage you to look for all of the times you wrote the word “assume” and ponder if you actually have a basis for that assumption. And read about these different fallacies and try to figure out for yourself if you’re engaged in them.

[jimwalton]

There are at least three problems here.

1. First of all, these arguments are well-worn through history, some of them more than a millennium old, that have engaged philosophers and scientists for centuries. For you to pass them off as "engaged in fallacious reasoning, and ... nonsensical" says more about you than about the arguments. The arguments are solid, and not so easily disregarded.

2. I don't want to discuss the particulars of the arguments until SOMEONE gives me the rebuttal case. I'm starting to think there isn't one.

3. The idea here is not that these arguments and evidences prove God but (A) They show that belief in God is logical, reasonable, based on evidences, and not circular reasoning, and (B) the case for theism is far stronger than the case against theism. But unless you give me the rebuttal case, you have no leg to stand on, even with your critique of what I wrote.

[Alto Ditch]

> Only then can we weigh which argument has more strength.

I will not weigh them against each other and do something like "My arguent is better", but we can discuss each argument seperatly.
​
> "I'm wondering what your case is for whatever you believe in contrast to theism.) " This forum is not really the right place to discuss such things

I was talking about evolution and the big bang here. I feared we might get off topic, and this is not a forum to discuss whether science is accurate. But I am happy to hear, that you accept the two seientific theories.
​
> There is at least some evidence of the supernatural, as I listed.

I think I adressed your arguments for the supernatural, sorry if I missed one.
​​
> What evidence do you have that materialism is the most reasonable conclusion, given what we see?

The definition of materialism I go with is "The philosophy that everything that exists is physical." (Strictly speaking is this the definition of physicalism.

But during writing this answer, I canged my mind and do no longer consider myself a materialist. I would like to intoduce "weak materialism", which I define as: "The philosophy that has an effect on the physical is also physical" Under this definition, I consider myself a weak materialist.
​
Now to the crucial part, my argument for weak materialism: (basically "we would expect evidence, but we don't have evidence")
​
Assumption: Spiritual beings effecting the physical world exist. (I will call such a spiritual being "interactive".)
Premise 1: If an interactive spiritual being exists, it has an effect on the material.
Premise 2: Science does measure effects on the material.
Premise 3: Scientifical measurements count as scienific evidence.
Premise 4: There is no scientific evidence for an interactive spiritual being.
Conclusion: The assumption is wrong. Spiritual beings have no effect on the physical world.
​
Self-reflection on my argument: I would consider the first premise the weakest, because you could argue, that an active spiritual being has an (currently) immeasurable effect, but that would also mean that there is no evidence for such a being and considering how precise our measurings are, that this effect is negligible.
​
I tend to take quite some time to make these responses, so could you please make only 2 or 3 arguments at a time? This would allow me to address them adequatly and would allow for a more qualitative discussion.

[jimwalton]

> I will not weigh them against each other and do something like "My arguent is better"

That's what abductive reasoning is, so if you won't engage there, there's no way to evaluate the strength of one hypothesis over another.

In any case, I hope that it's at least clear that the argument for theism (and therefore Christianity) is not circular.

> I think I adressed your arguments for the supernatural, sorry if I missed one.

You actually didn't. All you did was mention briefly the lack of evidence for the supernatural—that's all you said. I find it an intriguing comment since history is full of evidences of supernatural occurrences, coming from multiple eras and almost every culture. Even in our day there are evidences of miracles and answers to prayer that are inexplicable by scientific means.

> The definition of materialism I go with...

Thank you for giving your definition of "weak materialism."

As far as your definition and case, I have a few comments.

1. Even weak materialism is a philosophical position and cannot be proved by scientific evidence. If scientific evidence is necessary to prove something is true or real. your argument for weak materialism fails. Scientific methods can never demonstrate the truth of the worldview, including yours. You are a weak materialist by presupposition, not scientific measurement, and therefore the position itself is self-contradictory.

2. To do science (measurements), you must accept presuppositions that cannot be proved by science measurements: sense perception and reason are basically reliable, nature is intelligible, and the knowledge of nature is largely independent of one's worldview, among other presuppositions. None of these can be proved by scientific measurements on material realities.

3. If only the physical has an effect on the physical, I have no grounds for trusting intelligence. If intelligence is the product of only physical and chemical processes (that have nothing to do with "truth" and don't teleologically aim at "truth", can't "understand," and are incapable of making judgments), then reason itself is unreliable, and both your definition and your logical case can't be trusted. Physical processes don’t lead us to meaning, judgments, values, and logic (entities that do not exist in the subatomic, chemical, biological, or molecular phenomena). This reductionist-materialist objection is self-defeating.

Now, let's analyze your premises.

Premise 1 is weak. The Bible says that much of what God (and angels) do is not affect the physical world, but our mental and spiritual world. While there are things they do to affect the material world, the majority of it is not.

Premise 2 is, of course, true. That's what science does, and that's ALL it does.

Premise 3 is weak. Yes, scientific measurements count as scientific evidence, but scientific evidence is far from the way to much knowledge let alone the only way to knowledge. Scientific measurements can only take us to certain places (the natural world), and they can only take us so far (we can't, for instance, see before the Big Bang).

Premise 4 is weak and misguided. To do a science experiment for an interactive spirit being, you'd have to know ahead of time what was going to happen and set up an experiment, a control group, and equipment to capture it. Since no such thing is ever possible, the premise fails as the qualifier for what exists and what does not.

Therefore your conclusion is incorrect on the following bases:

1. Most of what spirit beings do does not effect the spirit world.
2. Science cannot detect causes, in this case (the spirit beings themselves), but only effects where the causes cannot be measured or included in the experiment, rendering the experiment meaningless.
3. Since we never know ahead of time where and how spirit beings will manifest effects on the physical world, it's impossible to ever establish a legitimate science measurement of it.
4. Since a science experiment can only derive a material, physical explanation for any given phenomenon, it is biased to never be able to perceive spiritual causes no matter what.

I hope this helps and leads us to more dialogue. I appreciate that you have tried to give a rebuttal case. You're the only one.

Eventually we would have to put the two arguments side by side to evaluate the comparative strength of theism vs. naturalism. Thanks for the discussion.

[Egg Head]

I’m sorry but even these responses dip into more fallacious reasoning. The amount of time something has been around and who believes has absolutely nothing to do with if it’s true or not. Also, a lot of your descriptions of the arguments don’t even exactly follow what they actually say. If these were sound, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation right now. The burden of proof is on you. You’re making a claim, and you need to provide the evidence to support it. You haven’t. I’ve already responded to everything you’ve put forth and it’s not evidence at all.

[jimwalton]

You understand, I should hope, that I am abbreviating the arguments. Each one requires a chapter. I guess I had assumed that if you were having this conversation you had done some research into the subject yourself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if not, then it's not reasonable of you to reject an argument based on a 3-sentence summary of it.

The subject at hand is that "Christianity is based on a circular argument." Whether you like my arguments or not, they still show that Christianity is not based on a circular argument.

> The burden of proof is on you.

In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the affirmative (the plaintiff). In a debate, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, from either side. I asked for a rebuttal case (what you subscribe to and the evidence for it) and didn't get one. That tells me something.

I can try to put the real case here, but it would take 10 posts of walls of text to put it all. Here, for instance, for you, is a more thorough version of the Cosmological case. It's just 1 piece of many more if you want the whole argument for God's existence. You'll see why I didn't give the full case for all the points. The upshot is: Christianity is not circular, and the case for theism is FAR stronger than any case of rebuttal.

The cosmological argument is about causes—what caused the universe we now see. Everything we see around us had to have come from somewhere—something that made it come into existence. Things don’t just pop into existence all by themselves. Other things make them come into existence. My claim is that science gives us no evidence of anything that began to exist spontaneously of its own volition. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?). If it had a beginning, it had a cause outside of itself, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Something had to have already existed.

Scientists are on the hunt for "the beginning." They use mathematics to extrapolate back to "the beginning." Using the observable expanding universe (from the Big Bang) as factors in the equation, the theory holds that way back in time, before the Bang, there existed only an infinitesimally small point consisting of no matter and no dimension, where the laws of physics as we know them were not in operation. If that is the case, so goes the Cosmological Argument, a supreme, supernatural divine being outside of what we know as nature is a logical candidate to have been the First Cause.

Ilm al-Kalam proposed that unless there was a beginning, there wouldn’t be a present. Think of it this way: Suppose you go to the grocery store and, approaching the deli counter, you plan to take a ticket for your proper turn. But on the ticket-dispenser you see a sign that says, “Before taking this ticket, you must take a ticket from the machine on the right.” You reach for that machine, but it also has a similar sign on it. The third machine has the same sign. And the fourth. This could go on forever (which is Kalam’s point), unless you finally get to a machine somewhere in the line that allows you to take a ticket. Unless there is a beginning, there can be no present.

Kalam’s case could also be stated mathematically. Instead of starting counting at 1, start at the first number after zero. Well, you can't start at .9, because there's .8, .7, etc. You can’t start at .1 because there's .99, and there's .999, and .9999. In other words, if we have to consider an infinite quantity of previous numbers, we can't even begin to count.

Here is the way Kalam’s argument looks:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What he is arguing is that somewhere there must be a First Cause, something (or Someone) that was always there to kick the whole thing into gear, to cause everything else. The Cosmological Argument states that God is a more reasonable possibility as the First Cause than any other explanation.

We are wrestling with what best explains the beginning. Since such realities cannot be observed with our senses or tested in a lab, and since the laws of physics and the forces of the universe were not operational before the Big Bang, theists claim that no explanation for the universe can be found from nature’s own existence, since it didn't yet exist. The mechanism that caused the universe was external to the universe. While alternatives for what that mechanism was are continually theorized and discussed, God is not an irrational choice among the options, and it's certainly not circular.

The arguments against the Cosmological Argument are as follows:

(1) "Why couldn’t the Big Bang have happened with no cause? Maybe it just happened." The problem with this approach is that science knows of no such possibility. Even biological things came from other biological things, or at least from something that already existed. To think that the universe spontaneously generated flies in the face of logic and science. Something had to have existed before the Big Bang to cause it to happen.

(2) "The universe is endless and uncaused." According to Kalam’s logic, this is impossible, and according to what scientists tell us, the universe is not endless. We now have fairly strong evidence that the universe is not endless and uncaused, but had an absolute beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. In 2003 cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that since the universe is in a state of cosmic expansion, it cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. According to Vilenkin, "Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." It reasonably follows, then, that there must be a transcendent cause that brought the universe into being.

(3) "A quantum event of unknown character and means triggered the Big Bang." Yet this is a "god-of-the-gaps: argument that is purely speculative with no substance to support it. In addition, it still presumes the effects of scientific forces in an environment devoid of scientific forces.

(4) "If an infinite universe is logically impossible, how can an infinite God be logically possible?" At the bottom line, something has to be eternal, has to have always been. Either it was material or nonmaterial. Since both science and logic give strong evidence that it was not material, we are left with a nonmaterial cause that is eternal.

(5) "I don’t think it being 'metaphysical' proves anything about it being a divine source." My assertion is this: since the material didn’t exist (as far as we know), that seems to point to a nonmaterial cause. Since time didn't exist, that seems to point to a timeless cause. Since it would take power to create the Big Bang, that seems to point to a powerful cause. Since impersonal causes must have first causes, and only personal causes are capable of being first causes, then that seems to point to a personal cause. A nonmaterial, timeless, powerful, personal cause points to God.
So what caused the universe to begin to exist? It has to have had a cause. If the causal mechanism of the universe was not a thing (it was not matter, since science tells us the universe had a beginning and since it was a dimensionless singularity where all the laws of nature were non-existent), and since it was not, therefore, "scientific" (physics, chemistry, biology), then we have to wonder if the causal mechanism was a metaphysical being with the capability to motivate the Bang. This is not assuming a God; I have not already proven the existence of the spiritual realm, but it’s bringing into the equation the only alternative to a material causal mechanism: an immaterial, metaphysical, timeless, powerful one. God is a reasonable choice as to that cause.

Richard Swinburne gives another version of the cosmological argument, this one showing how theism is the most plausible conclusion to the cause of the universe. His reasoning flows as follows.

If we assume the universe had no beginning, we assume that a series of events conforming to the physical forces of the universe brought about what we now have. The only causes at work are those that are effects of previous causes (an unending chain of causes and effects). What we are lacking, however, is a complete and scientific explanation for such a sequence of events. It has no complete explanation, nor even a full one. While we may be able to explain parts of it, it still has many theoretical and inexplicable components, since we ultimately cannot know all of what happened in eternity past. Therefore we have no complete explanation from science.

Therefore, Swinburne says, neither in any of the pieces we know about nor in the whole aggregate and series of things can be found sufficient reason of existence. We will never come upon a full reason of why there is something rather than nothing, for instance, or why it should be such that it is.

The same logic applies even if the universe did have a beginning. While we may speculate and theorize, a full and complete scientific explanation will be lacking. The existence of the universe over the course of time is simply too big a question for science to answer, and particularly the why questions.

If the existence of the universe is to be explained, a personal element must be inserted—an explanation given in terms of a Person who is not part of universe or its sequence of cause-and-effects, acting from outside it (given, of course, that this Person has both the intention and the power to bring it about).

The reasons of the world and its complete explanation, then, lie in something different and distinct from the chain of events or series of things whose aggregate constitutes the universe. If we are going to postulate a personal cause, this Person must be of infinite power, knowledge, and freedom—in other words, God.

The choice at this point is not to explain how God came to be of such power and knowledge, but rather whether the universe or God leads us to a more complete explanation of why there is something rather than nothing, and how it came to be. God qualifies for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, whereas nature does not.

Since the ultimate explanation of the universe cannot be found in science (our knowledge of the physical world), the ultimate root must be found outside of science (the metaphysical). If there is such metaphysical necessity, them, it follows that there must exist some one Personal Being of metaphysical necessity, that is, from whose essence all other existence springs—in other words, God.
According to Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation has weight of being the right explanation), theism has great simplicity of explanation—in other words, God.

In conclusion, there is quite a chance that if there is a God, He would or could make something of the extent and complexity of the universe. Weighing the alternatives, it is less likely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that a being such as God would exist uncaused. The universe is complex and puzzling, but can easily be made comprehensible if we suppose it is brought about by God. Theism poses both simplicity of explanation and sufficiency of explanation, while naturalism and science lacks complete explanation as well as sufficiency of reason. Therefore it is more logical to believe that the universe was caused by God than without Him.


There. Now you know why I tried to summarize it for you. So don't accuse me of fallacious reasoning. This is step one of a vast body of evidences for theism.