The Almighty God exists

Firstly, I agree that neither abiogenesis or evolution disprove God. However, I would claim that the burden of proof lies on you to prove God exists, as the default belief should be the null hypothesis, e.g. God has no measurable or demonstrative effect on the world. While it would be impossible to effectively test for God, due to His omnipresent nature (We cannot make two environments, one without a God treatment and one with a God treatment and then compare them), to then proceed to assume that God is the explanation for some observable phenomenon is baseless. One could just as easily assume an alternative God, unobservable secular force, or for arguments sake, invisible leprechauns, enacted such change, since each is equally untestable. To put it simply, to say that abiogenesis does not disprove God, because He designed abiogenesis is not a basis for God, since you could just as easily say that abiogenesis does not disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because the FSM designed abiogenesis. Because there is no compelling evidence in support of the existence of the FSM, the null hypothesis on the FSM effecting the world should be that the FSM doesn't, and in kind, because there is no compelling evidence in support of the existence of God, the null hypothesis on Him effecting the world should be that He doesn't. With the above given, I would hold that it is impossible to prove God exists, without some future miracle occurring that would be observable and repeatable. I make the above statement with some grain of salt due to the fact that as of yet, you have only loosely explained your concept of God. I would request a more precise definition before I argue that it is unreasonable to believe in God. I am assuming you're referring to an omnipresent, omniscient, Abrahamic God, but more detail would be greatly appreciated. Catholicism? Is the Old Testament still a binding covenant, in the eyes of the God you mention? Etc. Secondly, as you have not provided evidence that God uses science to accomplish His will, other than a rhetorical question, I would ask that you do so. Your rhetorical question assumes that God is a rationally thinking being whose actions can be predicted. However, if you were to conduct an experiment, praying to God for an event to occur, then predicting whether or not God would answer your prayer, I do not believe you would find any statistically significant evidence that you are capable of predicting God's actions, assuming He exists. Since you cannot know God by observing His alleged actions, why He would or would not use evolution to enact what may be His will is purely conjecture, as it stands. Additionally, while abiogenesis does not necessarily directly contradict the idea of God, the scientific method it is based on does not offer God any support. If you cannot provide evidence that, if God exists, He used abiogenesis and/or evolution for creation, other than the argument that abiogenesis and/or the theory of evolution are the best observable theories we have for life so He would surely use those, then how do you mean to defend the argument that He does indeed use those methods? If God is omnipotent, He could surely bend physics and laws of reality to His will, and would therefore have no reason to follow the rules for the universe He designed, would He? The Bible itself, if we are to believe its contents, even gives reference to several incidents where God chose to ignore the laws of physics. This directly contradicts the idea that God would choose to follow physics simply because He invented it. For instance the flood (apparent conservation of matter issue, as well as lack of geological evidence), the parting of the sea (numerous violations), and God stopping the Sun's relative movement for Joshua (major thermodynamics issue, as well as interesting meteorological implications).