Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I agree with this principle, which is why I’ve decided to apply it to the question of the universe’s origin.
Firstly, I must ask what the universe is.
My answer is this: The universe is the sum of all matter, space and time.
Secondly, I must ask if the universe is eternal – having no beginning or end – or if it had a genesis.
My answer is this: Scientific investigation has revealed that the universe had a beginning.
Thirdly, I must ask what nothing is.
My answer is this: Nothing is the absense of all things.
Fourthly, I must ask what God is.
My answer is this: God is the conceptual creator of the universe.
Fifthly, I must ask what the nature of such a creator would have to be.
My answer is this: God would have to be more powerful than anything in human experience, considering the size, scope and complexity of the universe. He would also have to be more intelligent than any being imaginable, for the same reason. God would have to be eternal, as well, because he would not be bound by the properties of time that he’d created. He would, furthermore, have to consist of something other than matter, because he would have to exist in a state of being independent of the properties of matter.
Sixthly, I must ask if it is possible for the universe to have been created.
My answer is this: Yes, because it exists, yet it has not always existed.
Seventhly, I must ask if it is possible for the universe to have spontaneously come into being from nothing.
My answer is this: No, because nothing is a hypthetical state in which all things do not exist, and such a state is, therefore, incapable of causing anything to happen.
So, in the final analysis you can see that the only logical explanation for the universe’s existence – no matter how improbable some may consider it to be – is that it was created by a super-intelligent, ultra-powerful, non-material, timeless being, because the alternative is impossible.
ATHEIST: That which we call the mind is merely a product of the brain, and the brain is merely a product of undirected, purposeless, material forces acting upon one another randomly over time.
THEIST: If a doctor told you he needed to implant a heart pacemaker into your body that was a product of undirected, purposeless, material forces acting upon one another randomly over time, would you let him do it? If not, why do you trust your own brain to work properly? Moreover, arguing that the mind is a product of the brain is like arguing that the driver is a product of the car he drives. In reality, both the brain and the car are simply tools created for a purpose, not the creative forces behind the intelligent beings who control them. Tools are a means of accomplishing certain tasks, not the conceivers of those tasks, and certainly not the creators of the conceivers.
By Edward L. Daley