Does God exist?

Our best evidence and reasoning, from several fronts, suggests that the whole of physical reality (all contiguous space, time, and matter) truly began to exist, whether it was at the Big Bang or not. This article analyzes six evidences.
• First, gravity equations yield a past-bound singularity, which represents the introduction of space, time, and matter itself.
• Second, General Relativity's singularity model is true, which is a particular kind of singularity model, and it too would constitute a true begging to space and time and matter.
• Third, past eternal expansion ends up requiring faster-than-light speeds (for particles), according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, and quickly represents a violation of the causality principle in Einstein’s special relativity.
• Fourth, total entropic decay has not arrived yet, but it is ostensibly easy to show that, given the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a past-eternal universe/multiverse would require that it has arrived.
• Fifth, total generalized entropy is not maxed, and this likewise demands there be a thermodynamic beginning (applicable to virtually all quantum cosmological models), and which seems coterminous with a cosmic beginning.
• Fifth, it is logically/metaphysically impossible for prior events to number to infinity, and yet if the physical world were past eternal, it would require an infinite regress of events. The Universe's having a beginning would support God's existence, because if space, time, and matter began to exist, then the required cause of those three things obviously couldn't depend on those three things. (That would require self-causation.) So the cause would need to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Moreover, it would have needed both the ability and disposition to cause space, time, and matter to exist. This sounds very suspiciously like God, and functions as a powerfully fulfilled theistic prediction.¹ By contrast, it is a uniquely awkward and surprising development for atheist thinkers; it “was not even remotely expected”². (In fact, atheists largely hated it and labeled the idea unscientific.)³

Of all the known ways the Universe's physical laws, constants, and initial conditions could have been, few ways would ever allow any life to exist.¹ This article analyzes three evidences.
• First, various constants of physics are fine-tuned, like the cosmological constant, the strength of gravity, the balance of the strong and electromagentic force, the weak force, and the proton-neutron mass difference.
• Second, various initial conditions are fine-tuned, including its initial mass-density, its initial distribution of energy, the Big Bang's “explosion” strength, the character of the density perterbations yielding start formation, and the density-ratio of radiation to normal matter.
• Third, various laws of physics are fine-tuned, including the notion of gravity itself, and the strong nuclear force itself, as well as the electromagetic force, Bohr's quantization rule, the Pauli exclusion principle, and more. This is a very awkward and shocking development for atheist cosmologists² because it means for them that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s ability to permit life is not nearly so surprising or improbable.³ A life-permitting universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.⁴

Of all the known ways that a life-permitting universe could have been, few have initial conditions, laws, and physical constants which would ever allow its potential lifeforms to learn about it. (See paper cited here.) This is a uniquely awkward and shocking development for atheists because it means for them that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s amenability to being discovered and known is not nearly so surprising or improbable. Such a universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.[Note: these three links will lead to some quotes from experts and a paper, but the arguments are not developed on BeliefMap yet.]

Features of living organisms resemble the products of an intelligent mind intentionally arranging parts for a purpose.
This article analyzes one evidence.
• The cell and its inner-workings seem to be. This is relevant because if God did not exist, then the likelihood of this superficial appearance is very low. However, if God does exist, then life's existing and resembling intelligently designed objects is not nearly so unexpected—it was designed.

Our perception, memory, reason and so forth can justify beliefs, and have a propensity to recommend to us true beliefs rather than false ones.¹ See this article for examples regarding the faculty of philosophical intuition (the most controversial): it justifies beliefs like…
• …x law of physics is constant.
• …x happened in the past.
• …x exists outside my mind.
• …x is conscious.
• …x is objectively morally wrong.
• …x could've occurred. This is relevant because it is awkward and unexplained if atheism is true, whereas if theism is true, it is not nearly so unlikely or unexpected. After all, creating moral agents with generally reliable cognitive faculties able to interact with each other is the kind of thing a good God would plausibly choose to do.

Humans are innately inclined to believe in God or gods (contra naturalism), instinctively finding it commonsensical or intuitive, even if they and/or their culture ultimately resist it and are “educated” out of it.
See this article to analyze four evidences.
• Atheist scientists find theism intuitive. (Boston study, 2013)
• Atheists in general find theism intuitive. (Finland study, 2013)
• Humans are born believers. (Oxford study, 2011)
• Intuitive thinkers favor theism. (Harvard study, 2011) By “intuitive” here, we mean that cognitively healthy humans from childhood into adulthood are innately predisposed to think atheism “seems” false or absurd. This is relevant because in the absence of a new belief which undercuts or rebuts it, it is rational to heed the suggestions of our philosophical intuitions. Doing otherwise runs one into severe worldview consequences, where one is suddenly unable to justify one's most basic beliefs.

Some actions are morally wrong despite what anybody believes.
This is relevant because the existence of such specifically personal facts in the world is unlikely if the world is, at bottom, impersonal (e.g. just particles and physics), and yet it is very much the kind of thing we would anticipate if a God exists who grounds the world and who could not fail to have been loving, honest, etc.

Some thing exists which is such that it could not have failed to exist; it could not be missing from any truly possible reality.
See this article to analyze seven evidences.
• Turri's Argument from Beginnings
• A “Sum-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• A “Start-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• Pruss's Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• A Big Bang Argument from Beginnings
• Rasmussen's Modal Argument from Beginnings
• Weaver's Argument from Beginnings That is to say, there is an entity/thing which, by its own nature, could not fail to exist. This is relevant because the entity in question will, by necessity, have a series of properties which strikingly resemble those of God.¹

Genuine supernatural events have occurred within human history, ones which are plausibly imbued with spiritual significance. For example,…
• Jesus was raised from the dead (resurrected).
• Ezekiel accurately prophesied Tyre's destruction. This is relevant because it is highly unlikely that such supernatural events would occur unless God exists.

Forthcoming.