The next question that comes to mind is:   Given that something exists 
now, did something always exist? We may also ask whether we can know the 
answer?

Fortunately   there are a limited number   of   explanations,   and  we 
can readily  exclude  several  of  them.   Here  is  a  list  of  all  
possible explanations  for this something that exists: 
 
1)   Something   always   existed.  In  other words,  either this 
something (the universe) always existed,   or there was something  else  
that  always  existed  from which this something is derived. 
 
2) There was a point when nothing existed.  

Let's begin a chart that  will  help  us visualize the  relationship of the option.

 CHART 1.1 
 
                            Something exists 
                                   |  
                                   | 
                       ------------------------------- 
                       |                             | 
                       |                             | 
                       |                             | 
             A point when there                Something always 
             was non-existence                 existed 

We have set up what is known in logic as a disjunct.  That means that 
there are  two options available,  and if one  is false, then the  other 
is necessarily true.

The  upshot  of all  this is, if  we can demonstrate  one of the  
options in our disjunct to be false, then we know that the other option 
is true.

To make matters more interesting  there are  three options that  come 
under the leg of "a point when there was non-existence":
 
a) Everything is an illusion, and nothing really exists. 
 
b) Something created itself. The "something" is self-caused. 
 
c)   Something  that  now exists  is  derived,   or  caused,  or  came 
from nonexistence (i.e. something came from nothing). 
 
Let's add these to our chart:

                               CHART 1.2

                            Something exists 
                                   |  
                                   | 
                       ------------------------------- 
                       |                             | 
                       |                             | 
                       |                             | 
             A point when there                Something always 
             was non-existence                 existed 
         ------------------------------                       
         |             |              |               
         |             |              |                     
         |             |              |                
      All is      Self-caused     Something           
      illusion                    came from           
                                  non-existence       


Let's   examine  "a   point when there   was non-existence,"  and its 
three options first.
 
Option   (a)  is easy  to  exclude as a  real possibility.  Option (a) 
says that  nothing exists;  that everything  is  an  illusion.  We  have 
already determined that something exists,   and we know that to be 
undeniably true. If something  exists,  then everything   cannot be an  
illusion.  But,  for the  sake  of  argument,  let's  assume  that  
everything  is  an illusion. Wouldn't something have to exist  to be 
having an  illusion?  Non-existence can't have illusions,  only 
something that exists can have an illusion. Not only that, but the 
something having the illusion must be a cognitive something. So this  
possibility  is  self   contradictory.  It  is  logically impossible. 
Scratch the first one. 
 
Option  (b)   asserts that something (this something - our universe,  or 
perhaps something else from which this universe  is derived)   created 
itself.   However, in order to create itself,  it would have to  be 
prior  to its own  existence. In other words it would have to be before 
it was;  it would have to be,  and not be, at the same  time,  and   in   
the   same   sense.   This  is  a  flat  out violation   of   the   law   
of non-contradiction.  A logical contradiction forces us to reject this 
option.   

Option (c)  says that  something  is  derived  from  nothing.  Let's 
define 'Nothing.'  Nothing is what we find when we look into an empty  
cookie jar, there  is  nothing there,   or no  -   thing  there.   By  
nothing  we mean non-existence,  or a complete lack of all attributes:  
No color,  no shape, no size, no substance whatsoever, no attributes at 
all.  If something could come from nothing,  this nothing would have to 
at least  have the attribute of being able   to have  something   come  
from  it.   If  nothing has that attribute,   nothing is not 'nothing'.  
This is because the  definition  of 'nothing'   is a complete lack   of 
ALL  attributes, and that which  we are calling  'nothing'  would have 
an attribute.  The person who claims that something can come from   
nothing is equivocating on   the terms.  That person is using the same 
term in two different ways.  The word 'nothing' means one thing at the 
beginning of the argument (it means  a   complete lack of  all 
attributes), later it  means something  else  (it  means  something  
with  at  least one attribute). In other  words this person is  cheating  
us  with  a semantic trick. But, we will not be fooled. Thus this third 
option fails, and with it so does the entire point. 
 
Given our above inferences, let's see what conclusion we can draw: 
 
1)   If there ever was a point when there was   nothing (no existence)  
and as we  have  already   seen there would   be no way to   get 
something from nothing, then there would be nothing now. 
 
2) There is something now. 
 
3)  Therefore,  there  never  was  a  point  when  there  was  nothing  
(no existence). 
 
Our conclusion is just  another   way of stating the second   point  of 
our disjunct: Something always existed. 

Now, since our universe is not always existent..... I'll let you take it from here/   

The argument is that God is properly basic, not that God's existence is conditional or contingent. Another way to understand this is that the alternate possibility other than God is either not by itself a feasible possibility (e.g., an infinite-aged universe), or a pre-existent metaphysical reality already presupposes God as part of its metaphysical structure.

Well, I can dismiss an infinite past origin to the universe since that would require traversing an infinite during the finite passage of time--something that I don't see as possible. This leaves a metaphysical origin to the world which, in my opinion, necessarily includes the existence of God.