(attempting to prove God exists)

Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a Cause.

God is the (first uncaused) Cause. We know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the Cause must be spaceless, timeless, and non-material. We also know that this Cause MUST be immensely powerful, right, in order to create 100 billion galaxies out of (literally) nothing?!? We can also surmise that this Cause must be personal, in some sense, as It has chosen to create, and only personal agents can create, to our knowledge. Moreover, this Cause has chosen to create (or allow the creation of) persons (that's us!) - indicating strongly that It is personal.

This Cause is also self-existing, right? We know that either the universe (or multiverses, if they exist) are self-existing OR the Cause of same is self-existing. (Those are really the 2 options we have.) But, since the secular data points toward the universe having a beginning (and overwhelmingly so), then we must conclude that the First Uncaused Cause is self-existing.
There is also a way to argue that this Cause is immutable or changeless. Let's not get into that too much, but it's worth thinking about on your own, OK?

So, we have: spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free will, self-existing, changeless. That sounds a LOT like Yahweh, no? All we are really missing is omnispresent, omniscient, and holy. There are arguments there as well, particularly for the first two. In summary, we have e stablished, through metaphysical analysis only, many of the prime characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God (the Father in Christian theology) Yahweh. So, He was there in the Kalam argument all along.

Moral Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

Here are 3 more reasons to back up Premise 1:

1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.

2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of macro-evolution and social conditioning - no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the randomness involved, get something entirely different:

“If — men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever - animals are not restricted by some sort of "traffic cop" in doing so. There is no one saying "OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if you eat all of him." :-)

Conclusion 1 is based on identity with Premise 2. If objective evil exists, then at least one objective moral value (evil) must exist. So, it is a restatement of Premise 2 based on the identity function of logic, perfectly acceptable. All we have to show Conclusion 1 is to find just one objective mor al value, and we did - objective evil.

Once we have Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, then by Modus Tollens, we necessarily have Conclusion 2. That's the second proof for God's existence.

Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God:

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is due to design.

Now, it must be noted that both Dawkins and Sir Martin Rees reject the possibility that it is due to physical necessity because the fine-tuning constants are independent of the physical laws of the universe. That is a key point: the G in the universal gravitational formula could, in theory, be anything - but if it were much different, no life whatsoever could exist - not just life as we know it, but no life.

Additionally, we would be forced, if what you say is true, to conclude that a life-prohibiting universe is a physical impossibility. That just seems to be a fantastic conclusion that would require some evidence. Why couldn't there exist a universe with no life whatsoever? Huge parts of our universe cannot support any kind of life. You would have to share some burden here yourself to provide a line of thought for why this might be true.

Even under M-theory, or superstring theory, the overwhelming number of possible universes are life-prohibiting. So, such a theory would seem to compound the need for showing physical necessity. It is an interesting line you are taking here, but I would like to see a little bit of evidence to support why that is true. I have provided several arguments against it, but I am open to your views in support of it.