One of the basic proofs for God is simple:
1. Everything that had a beginning needs a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe needs a cause.
While some will attempt to deny the first premise, few will go that direction, for it ultimately ends in effects without a cause, or the unknowability of cause and effect (a la Hume), which is unlivable and therefore completely inconsistently held by the few proponents who try it.
Most try to deny the second premise. Many try to say that the universe was eternal. But of course this flies in the face of the law of causality as presented here, and a simple denial does not prove anything. Some try to hold to a theory of an “oscillating universe” which would say that the universe was eternally cycling, but this goes against all the evidence we have of the bodies in space moving further apart and picking up speed: if it were to move back again, all the evidence points to the contrary, that it will be moving further apart in a linear fashion.
They have fun going round and round with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that energy in a closed system goes from usable to unusable. At this point, the atheists try to sidetrack the conversation into showing that the second law does not apply to the earth in the geologic short term, trying to prove evolution. But that is not the point of the argument from causality…….while the earth may not be subject to the second law in the short term, the universe as a whole is subject to it in the long term. Simply, if the universe were eternal it would have run out of energy an infinitely long time ago.
Then they try to posit a universe with multiple dimensions, which only serves to postpone the inevitable, for these dimensions are subject to the second law also.
We can also get sidetracked into trying to deny that a cause equals a god, but that’s another story for another day. For now, let’s just say that the cause would have to have all the attributes of what we call God, so it’s a rose by any other name. Further, they can make the mistake of Bertrand Russel and ask “What caused God?” but this is where he made a mistake. No one ever claimed that an uncaused cause needs a cause. For the argument says that there is a cause, and that cause is uncaused.
They can call God by another name, they can try to deny causality, they can try to say that an uncaused cause is absurd………but it’s still logically necessary, as shown by the argument. Despite their protests, the universe still needs a cause. And that we call God.