Arguments used are below:

For there to be a universal moral law, there must be a universal moral law giver. There is a universal moral law; therefore there is a universal moral law giver (God). There must be a standard that transcends human culture to account for these laws.

Horizontal Cosmological Argument
-originated by St. Bonaventure

1. The universe had a beginning
2. Anything that has a beginning must have a cause.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Vertical Cosmological Argument
-originated by Thomas Aquinas and refined by Norman L. Geisler

1. Finite changing things exist.
2. Finite, changing things must be caused to exist.
3.There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes.
4. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists.

By examining creation and systematically combining good arguments that point to the existence of God, we clearly see the invisible attributes of God start emerging.

- We know that something undeniable exists.
- Nothing cannot cause something.
- Something necessary and eternally exists.
- I am not eternal and necessary.
- Whatever is not eternal and necessary needs a cause.
- Therefore, there is an eternal and necessary cause of my existence.
- This eternal and necessary cause must be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-perfect (or good) and personal.
- This eternal and necessary cause is identical to the Being described as the God in the Christian Scriptures.

The God described in the Bible is eternal (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), changeless (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:18), infinite (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1) all powerful (Heb. 1:3; Matt. 19:26), and all-loving (John 3:16; 1 John 4:16).

"so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:11 ESV)

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24-25)

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

All photographs in this video were taken from institutions that have concluded that these photographs are free of copyright restrictions and they have provided an open invite to share them. There are "No known copyright restrictions." The institutions in which these photographs came are unaware of any copyright restrictions on the publication, distribution, or re-use of these particular photos. Their use restriction status is "unrestricted." Therefore, no written permission is required to use them.
http://www.flickr.com/commons

This is a response to a few people on LL that have labeled fallacies that are just not the case.
The first argument is valid; it's an instance of what's called "modus
ponens" (the structure is "If P, then Q; P; Therefore, Q"). The
structure of affirming the consequent (which is an informal fallacy) is
"If P, then Q; Q; therefore P"--the moral argument is not an instance of
affirming the consequent. Neither is the argument circular. An
argument is circular if (and only if) it contains a premise that
wouldn't be accepted by anyone who doesn't already
accept the conclusion. But plenty of atheists *do* agree that if there
is an objective moral law, then there is an objective moral law-giver
(Friedrich Nietzsche, J. L. Mackie, to name a couple).



The second and third arguments are also deductively valid. They aren't based on what we don't know
(there is no appeal to ignorance made anywhere in the argument).
Rather, they are based on what we do know. If the claim is that one or
more of the premises is more plausibly true than false, then that will
need to be stated and defended. If not, then the conclusion holds.