The above argument is not sound but is valid and the conclusion is true, even though one of the premises is false. Make sure what you believe, you believe for sound reasons.

It is common for someone who is an atheist or agnostic to say it would take absolute proof God exists for them to believe. Yet, they are quite willing to believe that the universe popped into existence from nothing at all (multiverse idea), when there is no evidence at all that other universes exist.

Even if there is such a things as multiple universes, that does not preclude the existence of God, or the need to find a non material cause for the multiverse. As you will see further on in a video, even the theoretical multiverse has a finite beginning and is inadequate for the explanation of the fine thing.

How can you show logically that something is possible when that person is not willing or able to accept logical premises and conclusions? I would say that the refusal to accept or even consider the logical arguments for God is not evidence based but ideological. Some don’t want God to exist, or they don’t like the idea that God may exist.

The following arguments have been developed by world renown and respected philosophers. In the first argument called the ontological argument, the only premise that is disputable is the first one. The rest of the premises follow logically and the conclusion entails from the premises. The argument is both valid even if you dispute the the first statement.

In order for someone to invalidate this argument, it must be shown that one of the premises is not true, and since premises 2-5 follow from the premise 1, then one must show why it is impossible for a maximally great being (God) to exist. If you cannot, then you have to consider the possibility that God does exist.

From there, you can investigate the other lines of evidence that support the inference that God does exist. I will list some at the end of this post.

Ontological Argument

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Cosmological Argument

Next is the Cosmological argument which shows logically why the universe was created by God.

The universe once was not. That is, before the universe began to exist, there was nothing, no matter, no energy, no light, not even space. It is important to realize this, space was not empty, there was no space at all.

There was a time when scientists thought the universe was eternal past, had always been. Science once scoffed at the bible verses that say the universe had a beginning, and that everything we see came from nothing.

Genesis 1:1; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Colossians 1:15-16; He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see

Hebrews 11:3; By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.

I am not saying that the bible is a science book, I am saying there are some very interesting correlations between the world and the bible. Back when the bible books were being written, they had no knowledge of cells, bacteria, quarks, or atoms. All these things were invisible to them, I wonder what is still invisible to us today?

Since before the universe began to exist, there was no material elements and no laws of physics in play, what ever caused the universe to begin must be immaterial (invisible), immensely powerful, supremely intelligent, and uncaused. The famous Greek Philosopher Aristotle postulated that the universe must have a “prime mover”, which he described as perfectly beautiful, invisible and eternal without cause.¹ With infinite regression comes logical incoherence, so there must be at the beginning of all things, something that has no cause, or is eternal.

In other words, a maximally great being like the one in the argument above. it is interesting how scientists are quite willing to accept an eternal universe but not an eternal being causing the universe.

So lets look at the Kalam Cosmological argument as argued by Philosopher William Lane Craig.

  1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


Fine Tuning of the Universe

There are only three explanations for the fine tuning of the universe.

  • Brute Chance
    • Mathematical physicist and colleague of Stephen Hawking, Sir Roger Penrose has calculated² the odds of a chance happening of the universe being as finely tuned as ours to be 1 in 1010(123)  

  • Necessity
    • The parameters have a wide range of possible values and therefor necessity is not a factor
  • Designed
    • A designer is the best explanation, if not a plausible explanation for the fine tuning in the absence of another explanation, and in conjunction with other line of evidence of design in the universe.

This is very difficult to dismiss and offers another logical inference to an intelligent being. Before evolution, before the origin of life on earth, there were the initial conditions of the big bang that allowed the rise of intelligent life like us.

There are those who will argue God doesn’t exist because they think he could have done a better job but that is irrelevant to his existence. There are others who invent extravagant theories to try an explain the fine tuning, even to the point of saying the universe is not finely tuned at all. Most of these objections are not from scholarly opponents but popular internet personalities and authors.

Remember, if you are going to refute or object to any argument, you have to invalidate one or more of the premises supporting the conclusion. Anything else is just background noise.

These are not the absolute proofs atheists and agnostics are wanting to see, but they do demonstrate why over 5 billion scientists and laypeople think it is reasonable to believe or even consider God does exist.

The above arguments show logically why you should further investigate the possibility God exists. What are other evidences he might? visit my YouTube channel for interesting and informative scientific and philosophical commentary about the existence of God. There are also many blog posts here supported by scholarly experts in their fields of study.

The statement: God does not exist, is not a rational or scientific argument, it is a statement, a statement that needs supporting logical premises and following conclusion. Or, the premises for the inference to God’s existence must be invalidated and shown to be false.

YouTube Channel

If you enjoy or find this content interesting, please comment below, hit the “LIKE”button, and the “SUBSCRIBE” button so you will be notified of new posts.

Thank you,

Robert J.


  1. Metaphysics book 12; Aristotle
  2. The Emperor’s New Mind, Sir Roger Penrose, April 2016, Oxford University Press pgs 341-344