Those familiar with philosophical arguments for God's existence may be aware of the much-discussed kalam cosmological argument. Its premises and form are as such:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The proponent then goes on to analyze the cause referenced in the conclusion. This cause is timeless, spaceless, unfathomably powerful and intelligent, immaterial, and uncaused. It is who everyone has referred to as "God."
Sometimes, oddly enough, premise 1 is challenged, as if something like the universe could literally pop into being out of nothing.
Apart from the many good responses I've read to that position, I add this: of all things that could've popped into existence out of anything (bizarrely granting this could happen, though I don't think it can), why would it be something that was so hospitable to conscious, apparently meaningful, human life? Why didn't some blob of matter or some inhospitable reality come into being from the void? It seems rather strange that precisely the sort of world suitable for life emerged instead of the seemingly endless alternate possibilities.
The only good explanation I know of is that the universe was brought into existence by a living cause who intended for there to be life in his creation.