Leibniz put it beautifully: he had a book of Euclid's elements on his table. That book came from an earlier copy of that book, which in turn was copied from an earlier manuscript and so on...

So of course, there must be a first manuscript, by the hand of Euclid himself, else none of the other manuscripts could have any objective reality whatsoever.

The gods are similar to things we know aren't real and unlike things we know are real; no gods are unambiguously detected by unbiased observers; gods take idealized forms that the person can conceive and hold attitudes and values the believer projects into them. — jorndoe

You know of only your existence here on earth. How can you be so certain of the nature of existence in the wider universe? The multiverse? All possible kinds of realities?

It is illogical to profess certainty on such a question.

It seems something of a miracle that there is something rather than nothing. Why should there be anything at all? As soon as there is something, something requires explanation, which it cannot have. Contrast to nothing; this is logically what you would expect - a complete lack of anything existing at all.

So we are all lucky to be here.

Just Google “logical fallacies”. All the arguments for gods existence are listed under logical fallacy. — DingoJones

The most glaring logical fallacy is, to me, strong atheism. How can anyone profess to be sure the universe was not created? No-one was there at the Big Bang to witness it, so we must all be agnostic.

I agree. It must be substantivalism rather than relationism. There are just too many arguments to say that space (and time) must be 'something'.

The simplest one: space is expanding and 'nothing' cannot expand.