Whatever begins to exist must have a cause/explanation for its existence. Something starts-something started it-it didn’t start itself. Denying this would undermine the notion of science as things could just pop into existence, without reason.
The universe has a beginning. This slowly became clear after the Hubble telescope was created and we could see galaxies moving further away and that the universe is expanding. Meaning there must have been a starting point.
But science wasn't always supporting a big bang so before that a beginning was argued only from philosophy. There must be a first cause, a prime mover, because if there is some sort of infinite past, then we could never arrive at this current point in time. You cannot have a past eternity, or at least, us finite humans can't.
So therefore, the universe must have a cause, a cause greater than itself and separate from itself. The universe is made up of space-time and matter and therefore these can’t be part of the cause. Stephen hawking has written lots on theories on how the universe came about without a mind though constantly changing because he was continually wrong.
So because things cannot create themselves, whatever created the universe, is space less, timeless and not made of matter (immaterial). We can conceive of abstract immaterial things like numbers, but they are not causal, they can't do anything. But minds can cause things to happen in the physical. Also see The Emergent Universe.
The other reason to suspect a mind is because there was no time and deterministic processes that could have caused this prime mover to act, which would mean it chose to. Minds choose things. Another reason is all the clear evidence of design and fine-tuning observed by many scientific disciplines.
And while humans will disagree on what is and isn't moral, there is a universal instinct among humans that morality exists. And our consciences torment us on this, so perhaps the mind behind the universe is a moral agent and wants us to act a certain way.
So theoretically, we've got a spaceless, timeless, immaterial mind that has moral ideals and has bestowed them on humans. Very close to a God.
The objection “well who created God then?” is incredibly dumb and is spouted mostly not by philosophers by people like Richard Dawkins who specialize in evolutionary biology, not philosophy. This objection fails because we are appealing to a universe that scientist accept was created. Christians don't believe in a created God so there's no point posing this to them. And presupposing that God needs a creator will simply get you stuck in an past infinite regression which makes far less sense than just positing one prime mover. Cosmologists have no viable models of an eternal universe. Additionally, God would have been defined as timeless, meaning he does not need a beginning.
And while this argument couldn't get you straight to Christianity, it does knock out a bunch of religions that have a created god or has god existing as apart of the universe.
Positing a multiverse doesn’t help it just kicks the can down the road, something started that too…
“Science will eventually explain it” This would be science of the gaps!
Jones, Michael. “The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.” YouTube, Inspiring Philosophy, 16 Sept. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ULF5WixMM&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVaeZAtP70U5Co5WOirhinQ&index=1.
Jones, Michael. “A Universe From Nothing, Therefore God Exists!” YouTube, Inspiring Philosophy, 3 June 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ie9musGEqQ&t=3s
Winger, Mike, and Braxton Hunter. “One Effective Way to Show People God REALLY Exists (with Objections Answered).” YouTube, Mike Winger, 11 Feb. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrgSbFhHCmU&t=1484s.
Comments