http://www.geocities.com/mnapologetics/art1a.htm
I am only copying a portion of a very interesting article.ENJOY
The cosmological argument—1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause outside itself, 2. The universe began to exist at a point in time, 3. Thus, the universe has a cause for its existence that is outside of itself.
The teleological argument—1. That which has design was designed by something (i.e., a designer), 2. The universe displays incredible design, 3. Thus, the universe was designed by a grand Designer.
The anthropic principle—A subset of the teleological argument which acknowledges that the existence of the universe appears to have the function of life “in mind.” All contingent human needs are met in a delicate balance of innumerable cosmogenic and teleological factors (e.g., humans need air to live-->there is air, humans need water-->there is water, humans need the sun-->there is sun, light illuminates items for sight-->humans have eyes to see, etc…)
The argument from desire—1. I desire things for which there exists the possibility of satiation (i.e., hunger-->food, libido-->sex, comfort-->comfort, etc…) 2. I desire a sense of total fulfillment, 3. Thus, the possibility for total fulfillment must be real. However, experience indicates that this desire cannot be met by anything offered in the world. Thus, it must come from outside the world. As CS Lewis said, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was meant for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not mean that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”2
The argument from moral values—1. The existence of a law or principle necessarily implies a lawgiver or principle maker, 2. Objective moral laws and principles exist and are undeniable. They are not mere convention (e.g., rape and torture are really wrong) 3. Thus, an objective moral law/principle giver must exist. Again, CS Lewis, “When I was an atheist my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?... Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless. I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.”3 Purely naturalistic worldviews simply provide no foundation for the laws of morality that undeniably and objectively exist.
The argument from meaning—1. Human beings factually have an inherent need for a sense of meaning and purpose and expend great energies in search of it, 2. This sense of a need for meaning does not make sense in a purely naturalistic or materialistic worldview since meaning implies something beyond mere physicality. 3. Thus, life must have real meaning drawn from some non-physical reality. The inverse of this argument might be stated this way: If the universe has no meaning, we should never even have begun to grasp the notion of meaninglessness.
The argument from hope and the problem of death—1. There is something within human beings which continues to hope for some possibility of good beyond the present situation and, at the same time, something which excites great anxiety as we ponder death. Therefore, just as physical mechanisms within us compel us onward toward real physical needs, so to are there “spiritual mechanisms” that compel us onward toward real spiritual needs.
The experiential argument—Throughout all of human history, there has been a vibrant, cross-cultural belief in God. Moreover, millions of people testify to experiencing God in a personal way. These testimonies are often accompanied by a visible change in behavior that is often diametrically opposite the behavior exhibited the person prior to their experience with the transcendent. This is true of all levels of intelligence and sociocultural backgrounds and often includes those who, before this experience, were even openly hostile to theism. While the experiential argument is subjective (i.e., it relies on human testimony rather than logical inferences), it is nevertheless an evidence of theism or at least, of a metaphysical realm. Belief in God is not something done in a corner by only a few human beings. Rather, most people believe in God.
Taken together, these arguments make reasonable the assertion that there is indeed a creative, purposive force behind the universe.
Ask yourself this
What must something do in order to create itself?
Linear Mode
