The founder of Logic, Aristotle, had logical arguments in favor of the existence of a First Cause for the cosmos. This argument has its opponents of course but which argument doesn’t? Every argument has people who do not believe it is logically sound; however that Logic is based on axioms. Depending on the axioms you choose, another logic appears. Who is more valid? Mine? Yours? For example we see about a dozen parameters of the Universe have a specific value to make it able to sustain life. One solution is to consider that by design. Another solution would be to consider that pure luck as Skeldon_Man mention. Which one sounds more logical? Skeldon_Man seem to be claiming that the universe may exist just because...but this is hypocrisy. Science continually searches for the cause of everything. How can it be that when it comes to the cosmos it stops searching? Accept the thinking of the other person if you want him to accept yours!
The most important things in life are your relationship with other people. And modern science is too materialistic and agnostic to see that. It only deals with lifeless things. Why then have it so much in estimation when it does not help you at all with the things that matter? On the other hand good religion practitioners will try and help you with your personal problems, will try and provide you guidance with your problems. Will support you when in need. In the 2011 crisis in Greece, it was the Church which provided food for free to the homeless, not science.
You might think this is hypocrisy. Skeldon_Man was not and is not being brainwashed and told what to think. You need to think objectively. The bible is not the final say in our lives. It was written by rich men to exploit the poor and unfortunate. If the moon is removed from it's orbit, there will be no high and low tides and the earth would be in a wobbly orbit. How can life exist on earth? Please think outside the box.