If you are in doubt about the existence of God, below is a perfectly arranged premises of argument that would put an end to your doubt.



PREMISE 1; Something must be eternal


Why ; If there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing. Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old. So what is this very something that is eternal ?


There are only two options; Universe itself or any invisible Being outside the Universe. Let depicts any invisible Being outside the Universe as God.
Of course it would not make sense to assume that both God and Universe are eternal. So only one thing must be eternal.

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?


PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; for anything to CHANGE, an EXTERNAL cause is required to trigger this change. But as we have established above in premise 1, only one thing (i:e either Universe or God) must be eternal. Therefore, in the long past, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Consequently, there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.


OBJECTION ; Why is it only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ? What of internal cause within the eternal entity ?



REPLY ; if "all the cause" necessary to trigger a change in an eternal entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state.
For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkali from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished dropping the third drop, the color will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkali). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already inside the alkali right from the beginning of its production (i:e INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkali would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkali is already pink not colorless. That is to say, the final state has preceded the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.
Therefore, it is only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ( or anything )

But there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in an ETERNAL entity because in the long past nothing exist beside this eternal entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.



PREMISE 3 ; Universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; In the long past, no part of Universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak, can think and can move voluntarily . But now some part of the Universe (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think and can move voluntarily. Therefore, Universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic, then God must be eternal.

But are we 100% sure that this very God actually exist ? If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then Premise 1 would be wrong.

But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

However, if you are not yet satisfied, see another one below

Abiogenesis is the creation of the first living cell from non living materials through a natural process.


Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


As we can see from above, there is no way we can divorce the theory of abiogenesis from the theory of evolution because without abiogenesis, evolution cannot take place.


But abiogenesis is impossible because of the natural law of entropy.


Natural law of entropy simply says things tend to become disorder when left to themselves. For example, dead cells tend to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials are no way different from dead cells because both are "dead" already.

In fact, dead cells are even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cells.

Now this is where I am going;

If natural law of entropy tends to cause the
DEAD CELLS TO DECAY AND DISINTEGRATE
ever more, then would such law of entropy
allow the NON LIVING MATERIALS TO BUILD
UP GRADUALLY until they reach the level of
"dead cell"-let alone jumping to the level of
"living and self replicating cell" ?


Of course, a prevailing condition in one community (i:e natural law of entropy) which always prevent all secondary school student (i:e all dead cells) from furthering their education to a University ( i:e living and self replicating cell) would NEVER allow a student from the same community to now jump from primary school level (i:e non living materials) to the same University.


This is not the issue of the gaps in scientific knowledge being used as evidence for God. Honestly, it is a matter of logical reasoning if you really understand the simple English I wrote up there.


Even if intelligent and conscious humans can give life to the dead in the future, then this will ONLY show that INTELLIGENCE and CONSCIOUSNESS is required for the miracle of abiogenesis to take place. It would NEVER prove that unintelligent and unconscious nature has performed this miracle in the past.


Therefore, if abiogenesis is impossible in a natural world (as we have just proved), then natural evolution has NOTHING to start with. This is how the theory of natural evolution collapses right from its foundation!



Hence, if evolution is really true as the evolutionary scientists want to us believe, then it must be orchestrated by a supernatural being.

The only reasonable candidate to occupy the sit of this supernatural being is God. Therefore, God must exist.