There are many arguments for and against the existence of a God. Some have been eloquently thought out and backed, others not so much. We hear constant ramblings and lectures of how everything began, why it is, and how to act from all sorts of perspectives around the world. The theological standpoint is a highly scrutinized yet vastly followed position that, depending on your own stance, is holy gospel or horrid gossip.
One strong argument for the existence of God is the "Cosmological Argument" that because there was a "big bang" or center of movement in the universe, then there was a beginning, and something had to start it. This "prime mover" had to begin the sequence of moves ex nihilo, being that first cause of all that is today and will be in the future. We know through science that every action has a reaction that will produce another reaction and so on. So what was that first action? Only God would have had the power to do so and a theological God at that because of us inhabiting this "goldilocks" zone surrounded by a volatile universe. This beautiful and vast realm was enacted in such way that we were produced and even able to comprehend the beginning of it all and to understand that there was something to have started it all. This is reaffirming to the existence of a theological God, one that wanted to have humans and to give them understanding of who created them.
A rather large problem with this is that not all theological followers agree with this argument, in fact, most do not, particularly fundamentalists. Many people do not believe in the "big bang" and some still believe the world is 6,000 years old. One could even use the cosmological argument against the existence of God. The knowledge of a first action does not warrant the existence of a theological God that are represented in texts, only that there was simply an origin, a stop to the past.
