[Busywhiskers]

Actually I will refer you to St Anshelm, who proved it logically in the 12th century.

The question is one that transcends science. To examine the issue "scientifically" you need only consider creation and the cause that would be necessary to produce it. We obviously cannot observe God, but then we cannot directly observe Quarks either, yet we know they are there by the effects they produce.

[BikerNYC]

Immanuel Kant developed the weaknesses in Anselm's argument's very effectively back in the 18th century. Even Church philosophers who were contemporaries of Anselm rejected his "proof" as insufficient.

You assume that creation requires a cause, yet you reject the idea that God requires a cause. I have no idea why there is something, including God, rather than nothing, but to postulate God as the source of it all leaves a lot to be desired. Why is there God rather than no God?

Quarks are an element of the Standard Model of nuclear physics. It is a theory which has a good deal of evidence to support it, but a new theory may someday be developed that better explains the evidence. Are you willing to put the God Hypothesis on the same footing and admit that there may someday be a theory that better explains the origins of things? Or does your faith in the God Hypothesis prevent you from considering that it may be in error?