Very well. No math or science - a purely philosophical discussion (although science is, itself a philosophical school of thought).
From wiki:
The cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God, or a first mover of the cosmos. It is traditionally known as an "argument from universal causation", an "argument from first cause", and also as an "uncaused cause" or "unmoved mover" argument. Whichever term is used, there are three basic variants of this argument, each with subtle but important distinctions: the argument from causation in esse, the argument from causation in fieri, and the argument from contingency. The cosmological argument does not attempt to prove anything about the first cause or about God, except to argue that such a cause must exist. This cause is known in Latin as "causa sui".
Framed as an informal proof, the first cause argument can be stated as follows:
1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.
In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of cosmological argument for the existence of God has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was put forth by William Lane Craig):
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Is that proof step by step enough for you? Or do you need me to post variations of it?
Please do not diminish whatever is left of your 'moderator' credibility by attempting to fool your readers. What you are saying here is that you don't know the nature of the first cause but it certainly isn't a deity.
If you don't know a thing, then you certainly do not know what it is. Conversely, you do not know what IT ISN'T.
You are fiddling with semantics. The thread asks for PROOF OF EXISTENCE - nothing more. We have not only proven existence, we have also proven NECESSARY EXISTENCE.
And if you are not inclined to call the first cause god, then, by all means, don't. FIRST CAUSE or the CAUSE OF EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING is more correct for academic purposes. Although any distinction is futile, imo, since you are merely substituting the definition for the word.
