From a very early age everybody questions about the existence of God. lets discuss the pros and cons on this topic.

Pros:
1.
The world is so magnificent and wonderful, so full of variety and beauty, that it is inconceivable that it could have come about purely by chance. It is so intricate that a conscious hand must have been involved in its creation. Therefore, God exists as the creator of the world.
2.
If you saw a watch lying on the sand you would think that there must have been someone who made the watch – a watchmaker. Similarly, we as human beings are so complicated and amazing that we must jump to the conclusion that we had a conscious maker
3.Rational thought and deliberation are the purposes of human life. We are alone in that respect and it is an amazing fact that we are here at all. The world would only have to be infinitesimally different for no life to have evolved at all. Getting something so amazing, on such long odds, smacks of intention. Like a poker player dealing himself 100 winning hands on the trot.
4.
God must be perfect if he exists. But a thing which exists is more perfect than a thing which doesn’t exist. But nothing can be more perfect than God. So God must exist.
5.
Everything in the universe has a cause. It is inconceivable that time is one, long beginningless chain of cause and effect, but it must be because we cannot conceive of something happening uncaused. Therefore, God exists as the uncaused first cause.

Cons:
1.You cannot infer from the fact that the world was created that God was the creator. The conception of God contains many extra attributes that aren’t necessary of a world creator. Second, just because the world is beautiful and varied doesn’t mean it was consciously designed. Why can’t beauty happen by accident?
2.The difference between a watch and us is that the watch serves a purpose – to tell the time. Therefore, seeing something so perfectly serving a purpose suggests design. What purpose do we serve? We don’t, we just exist. And even if we were designed for a purpose, the earlier argument applies: a purposeful designer isn’t necessarily a God.
3.The argument from probability does not work. It relies on there being something special about us. What is so special about us? We are rational – so what? The poker analogy is only remarkable from within the context of the rules of the game. What are the rules of our game?
4.This ontological argument can be rebutted by rejecting the idea that existence is a perfection. Something either exists or it doesn’t. It mightn’t be as useful to you if it doesn’t exist but that is hardly the same thing. And more importantly, the argument is a disguised conditional; you say ‘if God exists then he must be perfect, and if he must be perfect he must therefore exist.’ But all this rests on the initial ‘if God exists.’ If God doesn’t exist, we don’t have the problem and the argument doesn’t work.
5.The cosmological argument doesn’t work. For a start, an uncaused first cause still doesn’t necessarily have all the attributes it would need to be called God – e.g. omnipotence, benevolence and omniscience. More importantly, an uncaused first cause is just as incomprehensible to us as an endless chain of cause and effect. You are just shifting the incomprehension one stage back.