Have you heard someone say, “there is too much evil in the world, there cannot be a god?” Perhaps you have heard people say, “I don't believe in god because there is not enough evidence. That fact is that the evidence for the existence of God is wholly sufficient.
The person who uses the reality of evil as evidence against God's existence fails to realize that their very complaint invokes a moral law giver. When a person assumes the reality of evil, they are assuming the reality of good. They are also assuming a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and bad. When they invoke a moral law, they are assuming a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If that is the case then there is no good or evil. The criticism dissolves. So the reality of evil can only be resolved within the framework of a moral law giver.
The evidence for God's existence is compelling. The Kalaam Cosmological argument is a great starting point. Its basic premise is that the universe is not eternal. If it was, it would be god. Since the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning. Matter came into existence out of nothing. In the closed system that the universe is, this is an impossibility. There had to be a “first cause” outside the framework of this universe that brought it into existence.
Furthermore, the evidence from biology shows life to be intricately designed by an intelligence. Chance is too sketchy an explanation for the intricate language encoded in DNA. The intricacy of the eye indicates careful design by an intelligent creator.
When you combine all of this information it becomes clear that the existence of God is not just a plausible reality but an intellectual necessity. At least this is true if you want to have consistency between your beliefs, behavior, and the surrounding world. It is only possible to be a logical atheist if you live a life of despair. Naturally, that is unlivable.
God is an intellectual necessity because belief in God enables a person to have cohesion between belief and practice. In other words, God provides the best and most comprehensive understanding of reality.
\"When they invoke a moral law, they are assuming a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law.\"
Which is basically reducible to the statement: \"Moral law requires a moral law-giver\".
Rather than agreeing or disagreeing, I\'d simply like to point out that this is an assertion you\'ve made above, but not one you\'ve demonstrated -- so you\'re not quite proving what you claim you are. Perhaps with some revision it\'ll work out better in the future. Or maybe not.
Clearly there are plenty who believe a law of gravitation doesn\'t suppose a giver of gravitational law. Think of it like a math class -- try to show your work.