Nagel's Argument For The Existence Of God

Metaphysics is an area of philosophy which studies what exists in the universe and how it all fits together. One major topic in metaphysics is the existence of God, and there are many philosophical arguments from the theist and atheist side trying to prove whether God exists or not. In philosopher Ernest Nagel’s “A Defense of Atheism” he proves to dispel the classical arguments for the existence of God as well as give an atheistic view on why there could not be a God. Instead of just dispelling the theistic arguments Nagel brings forth an argument in defense of Atheism regarding the existence of evil and stands to prove that if evil exists then the theistic version of God cannot exist either. In response to the argument from evil Richard Swinburne
The cosmological argument is a theistic argument that states that everything in the universe is contingent on something else meaning that there is a cause for everything in the world. But since everything needs a cause there has to be a cause for the universe and everything in its entirety and according to the theists that cause would be God. In the cosmological argument God is a self-caused, necessary being that needs no explanation for existence. Nagel’s objections to this argument is that if God can be self-caused then there is no reason as to why the universe could not be self-caused as well, thus dispelling the cosmological argument. The rationale behind Nagel’s objections to this argument are ones that I believe to be accurate, I personally do not hold credibility in the cosmological argument as a definite reasoning behind the existence of God I think the universe’s existence can come from an array of reasons other than an all-powerful being creating
It makes sense that moral evil is relevant because of the ability to make your own choices which could bring upon evil but I do not see the necessity for natural evil on top of the moral evil. I think that the way that Swinburne states his theodicy it makes it seem as if the natural evil is so that it can produce a sense of balance of good and bad within the universe. I don’t think that there is need for natural evil if there is already moral evil in the world, and since God is the one that is controlling the natural evil I think this takes away his credibility for being omniscient. Since only some aspects of Swinburne’s theodicy are sufficient enough to combat the argument from evil and prove the theistic God’s existence I do not think that the theodicy is a strong enough reasoning to dispel Nagel’s argument against the existence of