Tim,
What you tried to do here is a logical fallacy. It's called "missing hypothesis".
Your argument may stand as long as you admit that the Universe has been created. However, that is not the only possibility.
Translated, what you said was: "Let us presume that the cats were not born with the urge to eat mice. Yet, the cats eat mice, therefore they have been born with the urge to eat mice." It is not the only possibility. Perhaps cats only eat mice because they don't want to starve. Therefore they do not necessarily have an instinct to eat mice. (PS: this was a presumption for the sake of example)
Try to think over your arguments before posting them. Trust me, you're NOT the first NOR the last that attempts or has attempted to prove God. And it takes a lot more than a logical argument.
Let me give you a logical argument:
- omnipotence: the power to shape reality the way you want it, when you want it
- omniscience: the power to know all things that have been, are and will be
Is God omnipotent and omniscient at the same time? If he is omnipotent, then he has the capacity of shapind reality the way he wants to, thus denying the existence of a fixed future, therefore he cannot know the future, and is not omniscient. If he is omniscient, he knows what his actions are, and his future is already decided for himself too, by his power of omniscience. Therefore he has to follow a fixed path, and cannot do anything outside of it. Therefore he is not omnipotent.
So... logic that one out.
