Common Arguments for the Existence of God

These are just notes I have made while studying arguments for the existence of a god. They do not of themselves necessarily prove the existence of the Christian God which is why arguments for Scripture and such are useful. This is mostly meant as a place I can come back to when evangelizing to refresh on things I may have forgotten.

cosmological argument:
1. There must be some explanation for why stuff exists

A devout atheist might bite the bullet and deny this, but any reasonable person is going to acknowledge that there has to be an explanation for why stuff exists. One of the consequences of denying this is that it makes science useless as science relies on the presupposition that everything has an explanation. Also, atheists usually deny things like miracles, but if there doesn't have to be explanations for things, why deny miracles?

2. The explanation can either be that physical stuff must exist or that something else made it exist
3.  The explanation is not that physical stuff must exist

It just seems silly that it is literally impossible for stuff to not have existed. This statement relies on a person's intuition and is probably the weakest, someone might just say that there is some physical thing that is eternal and just must exist.

4. Therefore something else made stuff exist
5. This something else must be non-physical, incredibly powerful, intelligent and imaginative, necessarily existing, & continually involved in continuing to cause stuff to exist.

moral law argument
1. There is an objective, eternal, universal moral law

Sub-arguments: 1.

1. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.

2. 

1. If morality were a subjective matter, we would expect to find sizable differences of fundamental principles amongst moral codes.2. But there is, in general, agreement concerning fundamental principles amongst moral codes.3. Therefore, morality is objective rather than subjective.Yes, there are differences in moral codes. However, some differences in moral codes can be explained in terms of differences about the facts.

3.

1. If moral values are subjective, then moral codes cannot improve, since there is no objective standard by which to judge one code better than another.2. But the work of people like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks shows that moral codes can be made more just3. Therefore, moral values are objective rather than subjective. 

2. Laws come from lawgivers.
3. Therefore, there must exist an eternal moral Lawgiver who stands above all men. 

If there is no God than:

Morality is merely a trait selected blindly by chance evolutionary progress.

Morality is an illusion that we pull over our eyes to stave off the true nature of our existence: unknowable, meaningless, extremely fleeting, and forgotten.

All sensations of meaning, love, and beauty are the desperate paroxysms of agonized, highly self-aware biomechanical robots, like us.

We’re dying. We’re about to disappear from all hope. All memory. We are atomic accidents.

I find this worldview to be too horrible to imagine.

P.S. there are also the popular ontological & teleological arguments which I find either not as strong or too complicated to use in standard witnessing opportunities and have not bothered to study in depth.