Of course, some persons will say: ‘I know there is a God. I can feel it!’ Yet, such “feeling” is not convincing evidence of God’s existence, is it? You may believe that God exists. But what if someone asked you: ‘How do you know that God exists?’ Would you be able to give convincing evidence to back up your belief? Unless you are personally convinced about the reality of God, it is not likely that such faith will hold up under intense pressure. Also, what about your children? Are you sure that they do not have any doubts about God’s existence? Is their conviction strong enough to withstand the onslaughts of evolutionary teaching at school? Could they have seen through the shallow, childish reasoning of the atheistic teacher?

Whether you are convinced of God’s existence or not, would it not be wise to consider any possible evidence available as to the existence of God?

Convincing Evidence From Sound Reasoning

TO BE convinced of something, we must be presented with proof or sound evidence. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” wrote an inspired Bible penman.—Heb. 11:1, Authorized Version.

In the original Greek, the word for “evidence” means “a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested.” The word was used by contemporary non-Biblical writers to refer to proof in court cases. Certainly, this would involve more than emotions; it would require the presentation of facts. Who would go to court and say, “I feel” that the defendant did this or that? No, you would have to present proof, convincing evidence.

So we must deal with facts. Yes, what proof or evidence is available that God must exist?

Sound Scientific Logic

It is a scientific and logical axiom “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” Mathematically, zero times 1,000 is still zero! Even a child realizes this. If he takes his piggy bank, puts no money in it and hides it, and if no one touches it for days, even for months, when he takes it out what does he find? Still no money. Matter does not spontaneously appear or just “pop” into existence.

Yet we have an abundance of material objects in the starry heavens. Where did all of these come from? Logically, they could not have come from nothing. So there must always have existed something from which all these things could have come into existence. That “something” must be eternal.

As recently as 1977, cosmologist Jayant Narlikar said that the most fundamental question in cosmology (the study of the origin and development of the universe) is: “Where did the matter we see around us originate in the first place?” Also, comparing the universe at its beginning to a very compact “cosmic egg” that supposedly exploded, biochemist Isaac Asimov says: “Astronomers are bound to ask: What happened before the cosmic egg? Where did it come from?”

Trying to show the origin of the stars from dense dust clouds, astronomer Fred Hoyle reached another dead end. He said: “Both these elements [making up the dust] are produced in stars . . . But how did this happen, if we can’t have any stars until after we have dust? Which came first the chicken or the egg?”

The vast majority of scientists today agree with Czech astrophysicist Josip Kleczek, who said in The Universe: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.” He then referred to Einstein’s famous formula E=mc² (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared), which shows that matter can be produced from a tremendous source of energy. Scientifically, then, it is possible for matter to be created from a source of “high energy.” “But,” lamented one outstanding physicist, “where the energy came from we don’t know.”

So, what logical conclusion can we reach? Simply this: That a source of “high energy” must have been that eternal “something” from which this material universe originated. This conclusion is backed up by the well-tested Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, which says that energy-mass can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely converted from one to the other. Hence, science acknowledges that from an eternal source of energy you could get the material universe.

First Cause—Living or Nonliving?

Now please consider these key questions: Was this original eternal source of energy a living, intelligent personality? Or was it something inanimate, nonliving? Did the universe merely arise out of purely mechanical, physical movements apart from conscious, intelligent direction?

Scientists, by carefully examining the universe, have seen evidence of machine-like precision. Heavenly bodies follow laws so exact that years in advance scientists can predict various celestial happenings. Moreover, some of our most accurate timepieces are set by the stars.

Very organized gatherings of matter also are observed. Especially is this true of the complex systems that make up living organisms. Even the “building blocks” of life, the protein molecules, display astoundingly complex arrangements of atoms.

How did all this precision and complexity arise? Is it the result of “blind chance” operating over billions and billions of years?

Some prominent scientists suggested that if a series of monkeys were allowed enough time to bang away on typewriters, in time—perhaps billions of years—they would, simply by chance, produce a book such as Tolstoy’s War and Peace. So, the scientists reasoned, if given enough time, this complex world gradually would be produced by random chance.

But, as another researcher observed, “You would need someone to recognize when they [the monkeys] had done their work. . . . and just how long the monkeys would be expected to take would depend on exactly how the selection was done.” Yes, an intelligent individual who knows what the book says must be there to select what is produced by the monkeys and arrange it into the masterwork. Without a “selector,” the monkeys would never really produce the book. At most, their efforts would result in an alphabetic hodgepodge or mere lines of disconnected or partial words.

“Blind Chance,” says the book The Life Puzzle, “is a creative fellow. . . . He is, however, very limited. Low levels of organization he can produce exceedingly easily . . . but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. And waiting for a long time, or using massive material resources, is not, as we saw, much help.”

Even youngsters know that you cannot build a “house” out of toy “building blocks” merely by tossing the blocks into the air, with the hope that by chance they may form a “house.” True, maybe on a certain toss, two or three blocks may stack up on each other. But what chance is there of an organized “house” being built? In fact, unless the child protects the few blocks that by chance did stack up, these could be undone by the next toss. Someone must manipulate the blocks to produce an organized, complex “house.”

Therefore, by their own observations scientists have been forced to rule out “Blind Chance” as the factor responsible for the high degree of organization evident on earth and in the universe.

In 1859 Charles Darwin proposed that “natural selection” was the guiding “selector” that could organize the results produced by blind chance and bring order out of chaos. Natural selection is believed to be a process whereby only “right” (favorable) designs or organisms (plants and animals) especially suited for their surroundings survive, and, hence, pass on the “right” design to their offspring, gradually “evolving” into more complex forms of life.

Yet, after describing the many unique conditions that permit life to exist on earth, evolutionist C. F. A. Pantin, former professor of zoology at the University of Cambridge, England, admitted that “the operation of natural selection did not account for all the special features of the natural world.”

What kind of “special features”? Well, zoologist W. H. Thorpe has called a certain feature “one of the most surprising and disturbing jolts to evolutionary theory in recent times.” It is the unbelievable complexity of the gene—the microscopic unit within a living cell that determines what that particular plant or animal will be. Genes are complicated indeed! Like miniature computers, they store information and feed instructions to the cell. If all this information were written out in standard type, it would fill an encyclopedia of about 1,000 volumes!

What chance would there be for a complicated gene to originate by natural selection through “random mutations” over billions of years? “The chances are, then, still unimaginably small (10⁻⁴¹⁵) that a proper DNA molecule would be produced in this time,” writes biologist Frank B. Salisbury in the scientific journal Nature. “Unimaginably small”! One chance out of 1 followed by 415 zeros!

Though Salisbury believes in evolution by natural selection, nevertheless the impossibility of such a thing’s happening caused him to conclude: “Special creation or a directed evolution would solve the problem of the complexity of the gene.”

Some intelligent force must have “directed” the construction of such a complex molecule. It could not have developed by mere chance or even by “natural selection.” Nonliving matter, like atoms and molecules, does not order itself.

“We also know that the most basic characteristic of life is that it can reverse entropy [the tendency of highly organized systems to become less organized], that is, it can restore order in contrast to the tendency of non-living matter to reduce order (or increase entropy; i.e., stones tend to roll downhill, not uphill),” reports the book The Reflexive Universe.

What does all of this tell us? That an original Source of Energy must have been alive to provide direction as the energy at his disposal was used to create the natural world around us.

We are drawn by sound scientific logic to the same conclusion anticipated over 2,700 years ago by the Bible in this scientifically accurate statement: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa. 40:26.

[Diagram on page 5]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

COMPUTER

GENE

The gene—the microscopic unit within a living cell—determines what that particular plant or animal will be. Genes are like miniature computers; they store information and feed instructions to the cell.

CELL

Evidence of Design

THE existence of design invariably calls for a designer with skill and ability. Who would think for a minute that a finely tooled watch would form by accident? Its precision of movement is evidence of a skilled designer.

So, too, let us take a good look at the human body to see indications of a great Designer. A glistening newborn baby, teeming with life, is in itself a breathtaking miracle. Moreover, within this little “bundle” are evidences of sophisticated design that impress even highly educated engineers and scientists. So, as the child develops, notice some examples of superb designing.

Our Bones: “Triumphs of Structure and Design”

Why did the book The Body, which strongly advocates evolution, describe the bones in the way that it does? Because bone “supports the body the way a steel framework supports a skyscraper, and it protects its vital organs the way a cast-concrete roof protects a building’s occupants. In filling these structural assignments, the human body solves problems of design and construction familiar to the architect and engineer.”

How would you feel if you were a building contractor and were asked to enlarge a home, making it three times higher and wider and yet not disturb the occupant’s daily labors or night’s rest even for one hour? Impossible, you say. Yet that very thing is required of our bones. Our frame must increase threefold from our infancy till we reach maturity.

How do our bones accomplish this task? Imagine someone scraping a little material off the interior of the walls and ceiling of a room and then depositing this material on the outside of the walls and ceiling. Each week the room “grows” several millimeters until, finally, after 20 years, our house is three times as large as before. Well, special cells in our bones do this same “masonry” work—osteoclasts (bone breakers) and osteoblasts (bone builders).

And what strength and flexibility is built into our bones! Their construction is similar to reinforced concrete (a material of astounding strength used extensively in modern construction with poured concrete formed around flexible rods of steel). Crisscrossed through the concrete-like calcium in bones, run fibers of collagen, providing the reinforcement. Yet bone is eight times stronger than reinforced concrete. Its tensile strength is greater than cast iron. Your shin bone can regularly support a weight of nearly two tons and can be subjected to pressures up to 20,000 pounds per square inch (1,400 kilograms per square centimeter). Yet bone is flexible and amazingly light. If steel were used instead, a 160-pound (73-kilogram) man would weigh nearly 800 pounds (360 kilograms)! Think about that the next time you are floating in water. So a perfect mixture is used in our bones, combining strength with flexibility and lightness.

As if this alone were not enough, the interior of the bones is like a “mint” where new blood cells, the life of the body, are “coined and issued.” As the book Man in Structure and Function comments:

“Just as banks build their vaults in the foundations of their buildings so as to deposit their gold reserves in the safety and security of their depths, similarly the body has used the most protected places in the human body, the interior of the bones, to deposit there the coin and gold of the cell state: the blood.”

No wonder the magazine Today’s Health says: “The human skeleton represents a masterpiece of engineering design, . . . ”

“The Ear: Masterpiece of Engineering”

So the book Sound and Hearing describes our organ of hearing. The book adds: “Yet behind [the outer ear] lie structures of such delicacy that they shame the most skillful craftsman, of such reliable automatic operation that they inspire awe in the most ingenious engineer.”

Just think: miniaturized into a space about one square inch (6 square centimeters) is an entire high-fidelity receiving and transmitting system. From the outer ear (which gathers the sound waves) through the middle ear (which converts the sound waves into mechanical movements) to the inner ear (which transforms the mechanical movements into electrical impulses), we see evidence of really sophisticated design.

In the cochlea (a part of the inner ear resembling a snail’s shell [note the picture above]), the real miracle occurs. It is here that mechanical movements are converted into electrical impulses and fed to the brain, which decodes these as sounds. To accomplish this function 24,000 tiny hairs within this organ act as the strings of a piano. The sound waves cause movements within the cochlea from which these “strings” then reproduce the various tones. Through nerves attached to these hairs electrical impulses are sent to the brain. One reference work says: “Since the cochlea in a pianist’s ear is approximately a million times smaller than the piano upon which he plays, one must imagine the keyboard and strings of a concert piano reduced about 100 million times in order to arrive at the dimensions of the auditory ‘piano’ in the ear.” Our “piano” reproduces perfectly every sound—from a faint whisper to the crescendo of a great orchestra—and all of this within a part the size of a pea! Design or accident? Have you ever heard even of a grand piano that came into existence by pure accident?

The Human Hand: “Instrument of Instruments”

So said an ancient physician about that which has made possible so many of man’s achievements. Biochemist Isaac Asimov echoed such feelings by calling the hand:

“ . . . a superlative manipulative organ, incomparably the best thing of the sort in all the realm of life—with four limber fingers and an opposing thumb so that the whole can be used as a delicate pincer or firm grasper, a twister, bender, puller, pusher, and manipulator of piano and typewriter keys.”

Indeed the hand is not only powerful, but strikingly agile. With it we can pound with a hammer yet also pick up a small pin.

Where are the powerful muscles located that control our fingers? Now if you were designing a hand, where would you put the muscles? Perhaps in the fingers themselves? How dreadful that would be! For even though they would have strength, they would look like thick sausages. Have you ever tried to pick up a pin with a thick sausage? But the bending muscles of the fingers for the most part are located in the forearm. Flex your fingers and feel your forearm. Feel the muscles moving? These are connected by “strings” or tendons to the tips of your fingers, resulting in great strength, but genuine flexibility. What a remarkable design! By mere accident?

The Brain: “Most Miraculous Creation in the World”

That is what a leading anthropologist, Loren C. Eiseley, an evolutionist, called our brain back in 1955. Man today, with all his increased technology is still dumbfounded at what our brain is capable of doing. It has “10 billion nerve cells, any one of which may connect with as many as 25,000 other nerve cells. The number of interconnections which this adds up to would stagger even an astronomer—and astronomers are used to dealing with astronomical numbers,” reports one reference work, and it adds: “A computer sophisticated enough to handle this number of interconnections would have to be big enough to cover the earth.”

Yet all of this is miniaturized into a mass weighing about three pounds (1,360 grams), small enough to fit in your two hands. Fittingly it is called “the most highly organized bit of matter in the universe.”

Our brain is capable of something for which no man-made computer has ever had a capacity: creative imagination. This was especially evident from the experience of composer Ludwig van Beethoven. When one of his greatest works, his Ninth Symphony, was introduced, the audience broke into “frantic applause,” they loved it so. Beethoven was not audibly aware of it; he was totally deaf! Just think, he “heard” the full richness of the composition first in his own imagination and then set it down in notes, and he never actually heard one tone. What power of creative imagination our brain possesses!

Is it not obvious that there are examples of superb designing in our body? Should we not be drawn to the same logical conclusion as that reached by an outstanding consultant engineer who struggled for two years designing an “electronic brain”? He said: “After facing and solving the many design problems which [the computer] presented, it is completely irrational to me to think that such a device could come into being in any other way than through . . . an intelligent designer. . . . If my computer required a designer, how much more so did that complex . . . machine which is my human body.”

Could all these examples of design merely have “just happened”? George Gallup, a renowned statistician, one who carefully compiles figures and facts on certain subjects, once said: “I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone—the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.” In other words, the chance that all of this could “just happen” without some directive power is, in reality, impossible, “a statistical monstrosity.”

The great physicist Lord Kelvin who at the time of his death, “was without dispute the greatest scientific genius in the world,” reached the same conclusion: “We are absolutely forced by science to believe with perfect confidence in a Directive Power—in an influence other than physical or dynamical or electrical forces . . . You will be forced by science into a belief in God.” (Italics added)

We can see convincing evidence of God’s existence through (1) sound scientific logic and (2) existence of design in the world around us. Still a question comes to our mind: What is this God like? To find a satisfying answer, please read the following article.

[Picture on page 9]

Marvels of the human body can be observed by the structure of the ear, the brain and the bones

[Picture on page 9]

“The cochlea [a part of the ear] . . . is a musical instrument of complicated structure resembling that of a piano”

Our bodies were made to do more than merely live; rather, they were meant really to enjoy life. Our eyes can see in color. Some animals see only in black and white, yet the world is filled with dazzling colors. We can smell, and we have taste buds. So eating is not merely a necessary function; it is delightful. Such senses are not absolutely vital for life, but are an evidence of a loving, generous, thoughtful Creator.

Loving concern is also evident in the animal kingdom. The great number of little “cleaner fish,” sometimes called “Doctor Fish,” is an example. At present, over 40 species have been designated as “cleaners.” These fish seemingly devote themselves to the removing of parasites and fish lice that could clog the gills of other fish and make them sick.

“More than this,” a cleaner fish “will nibble away at patches of fungi and bacteria which may be infecting the skin, and if the fish has been injured, it will eat away any dead flesh and thus clean up the wound,” reports the book Animal Partners and Parasites.

So you can see that these fish are very much like little “doctors,” sometimes even maintaining “offices” or “cleaning stations.” One “office” was observed serving over 300 fish during a period of six hours. Just imagine the picture: Fish waiting in line to be waited on, some “standing” on their heads or upside down as the cleaners work them over. All this “professional” treatment by the “doctors” and not one “doctor bill”!

How important is such cleaning activity? One of the top authorities in this field, Conrad Limbaugh, called it “a constant and vital activity.” He once removed all the known “cleaners” from a certain area and within a few days the number of fish had dropped drastically—eventually about all had left. And the few that remained “developed fuzzy white blotches, swelling, ulcerated sores and frayed fins.” All because the little “doctors” were gone!

Do the “cleaners” do it merely for the meal that they receive?

“None of them [the cleaners] appears to depend exclusively on the habit for its food.”

“Neither of these two fishes [two of the most zealous cleaners] is highly dependent on cleaning for food, and they can subsist on small crustaceans; both pick these from plants, the señorita [a type of cleaner fish] can also take them from the bottom and directly from the water.”

So they do not have to care for these other fish. Yet they do. Who could have designed such an efficient little cleaner—complete with bright colors to be easily identified, pointed nose and tweezerlike teeth? Who must have put such a living instinct into these little creatures? Only a loving, considerate Creator.

A factory owner with a wholesome appreciation for life will install in his factory many safety valves to protect those who work there. These valves, placed on boilers or other equipment to relieve pressure that might build up to an explosive force, are evidence of his genuine care for people.

In our world we see many such “safety valves” put there by creation’s Designer. The Creator “makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45) The way in which rain descends is one outstanding example of the use of “safety valves.”

Water by the billions of gallons is stored above our heads in the clouds as vapor. Water is heavy, a cubic foot (.03 cubic meter) weighing over 62 pounds (28 kilograms). A large cloud is estimated to weigh as much as 100,000 tons! Can you imagine the havoc that would be wrought if the water vapor formed one massive “drop” and cascaded to earth? What devastation! But, for some still unexplainable reason, the tiny water droplets join themselves together around a particle of dust—but only up to a certain size, no larger—and then they fall to the ground. The gentle rain showers seldom hurt the most delicate of flowers. We surely benefit from this “safety valve.”

Or consider the terror in winter if the water fell as colossal chunks of ice. Here again, at the moment of release, a “safety valve” produces little flakes that float down harmlessly and provide a cuddly blanket that conserves the warmth of the ground for the benefit of the vegetation.

Many persons in lands where the temperature can change rapidly may recall that when they were children, during the night when the temperature dropped suddenly, their mother or father got up and covered them with an extra blanket. Remember the next morning as you snuggled in your cozy bed, how “warm” you felt inside, knowing that Mom or Dad was so considerate of your welfare? Well, should it not warm our hearts toward our heavenly Father who provides this silvery blanket of snow for the preservation of the vegetation? Yes, his “handiwork” testifies that he is a tender and loving Creator who cares about us.

Justice

What about the quality of justice? It is vital that we establish whether the Creator has this quality. We know that a God of justice would not forever tolerate the glaring injustices, the lawlessness, the climate of evil that exists earth wide today.

There is evidence of such a quality from something within ourselves. What? It is described in a statement of truth in the Bible:

“For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their CONSCIENCE [“sense of right and wrong,” Amplified Bible; the Greek word means “distinguishing between what is morally good and bad . . . commending the one, condemning the other,” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon] is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.” (Rom. 2:14, 15)

It is the existence of conscience, a law “written in [our] hearts,” that gives us a sense of right and wrong. This is strong evidence that our Maker himself must be a God with a moral sense, having the quality of justice.

Twenty-three centuries ago, Aristotle spoke of the reality of such an inward law, calling it a “natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men.” Others have called it “natural law,” “the supreme law” and the “law of nations” or of humanity. Yes, a natural sense of what is just or unjust seems to be “binding on all men.”

A prominent anthropologist, M. F. Ashley Montagu, stated the view that many scientists shared: “Murder is universally regarded as a crime, and if the murderer is caught and brought to justice the penalty is usually death. Incest regulations are universal . . . private property is universally respected.” Though what constitutes murder or self-defense or “private property” might vary considerably, the root practices are consistently condemned. Despite differing opinions as to the content of such “natural law,” “almost all admit the existence of such a law. . . . conceived as the ultimate norm of right and wrong.” (Italics added)—Encyclopedia Americana.

Many still would discredit the existence of conscience by arguing that by nature man is aggressive, even murderous, without a sense of justice. Evidence to the contrary has recently come to light.

One outstanding example was the recently discovered Tasaday, a primitive people living in the Philippine rain forest. These people are thought to have been isolated from the main stream of civilization and its pressures for hundreds of years. One of the scientists who lived with them for some time said: “These are incredible people. . . . no greed, no selfishness. . . . They don’t know about killing, murder, war! Never heard of them.” He also observed: “Everyone goes around talking about people being bad because that’s human nature. . . . When you see these people, you have got to say, ‘No, man is not basically evil.’” (The Gentle Tasaday—1975) Yes, though imperfect and with sinful tendencies, man still displays a basic sense of conscience. One encyclopedia put it thus: “Actually, no culture has yet been found in which conscience is not recognized as a fact.” Indeed, this inward sense of right and wrong exists and does affect our conduct for the good.

‘But what about the many murderers, rapists, sadists—persons who seem to have no conscience at all? Does not their behavior disprove such a conclusion?’—so some might ask in objection.

What if the pilot of an airplane refuses to listen to the instructions from the airport control tower and he crashes, causing extensive damage and loss of life? Does this prove that the control tower “does not exist”? Look, by contrast, at the hundreds of planes that generally comply with the instructions of the control tower, usually making the airport a safe place. So because some have ignored or “thrust aside” (1 Tim. 1:19) this “natural law of justice,” refusing to be guided by it, that certainly is not sound evidence denying the reality of such a law.

During World War II, the Nazis committed horrors against innocent persons. For these acts that stunned the world, many of the Nazi leaders were brought to trial after the war. For the most part, these leaders denied responsibility for such acts, saying that they were merely obeying Nazi law and their governmental superiors.

“Political loyalty, military obedience are excellent things, but . . . there comes a point where a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his conscience.” So argued the chief prosecutor from Great Britain.

“Guilty” was the verdict against those men. Why? They should have obeyed “a higher natural law of justice,” reported one reference work.

Some have criticized such trials, saying that such a “natural law” did not exist and the defendants could not legally be tried by it. However, the statements of some of these hardened leaders give additional support that such conscience does exist; that such a force was operative within themselves but was merely ignored. Defendant Walter Funk said: “And when these measures of terror and violence against Jews were put up to me, I suffered a nervous breakdown . . . I felt ashamed and the feeling of guilt at that moment and I do feel the same way today, but too late.” Hans Frank (sentenced to death for his crimes) admitted: “I feel a terrible guilt within me.” (Italics ours)

Yes, if we are honest with ourselves we know quite well that we do have inside us an inherent sense of right and wrong, a “natural law of justice.” Who put such a real law within us? Certainly man himself is not the author of such a law. It could only have originated with our Creator and Designer. Are we not led to the following conclusion: the Creator himself must be a God with a moral sense, a God of justice?

How grateful we should be to know this! For it assures us that he will not forever tolerate the gross injustices and wickedness that exist today. His sense of right and wrong, or justice, will cause him to act in behalf of those who want to live by his standards of right.

God’s Qualities Should Draw Us to Him

From our short examination, what is your personal judgment or “verdict”? Many readers no doubt would agree that there is convincing evidence pointing to this conclusion, namely, that a loving and just God of awesome power must exist.