Friday, 21 June 2019

WIKIPEDIA AND LUCIFER

.


Wikipedia calls Stephen Meyer and Michael Egnor "pseudo-scientists" because they both publicly support the idea of 'intelligent design'.

'RationalWiki' goes further calling Egnor "a promotor of neuro-woo". [RationalWiki has a "board" of directors who hide behind fake names]

Egnor and Meyer are modern "heretics" who speak out against the dominant establishment scientific doctrine, i.e. 'materialism', which asserts that: 

Consciousness is an epiphenomenon of electro-chemical activity in the brains of sentient beings. Beyond these neural signals there is no consciousness. Whatsoever.

Thus the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe is reduced to being a by-product of sodium and potassium ions acting across cell membranes and there we have it;

it is not consciousness that causes body chemistry, it is body chemistry that causes consciousness.

John Cleese quotes George Orwell regarding this issue when he says here that:
"Only an intellectual is capable of believing such nonsense." 

The question is ... why does Wikipedia and every other establishment instrument in the public domain put so much effort into forbidding the idea that there is a 'God' that has created the universe?
The answers are fairly obvious but worth stating:
The establishment wants (and needs) us to listen to and obey its authority only. 
The world is ruled by Luciferians who want and intend to displace God. They are, essentially, thieves who want to own it all and in order to achieve their goal they must persuade us to silence the voice of God, the Logos, within our very being. Along with everything else they decide what kind of drama we get to watch (e.g. anything on Netflix or, perhaps, predictably PC, arse-aching BBC sh*t like this)

God is love. The love of self and other. The affirmation of all.

Lucifer is love of self and rejection of all that does not serve love of self. 
It begins with the illusion that self is source but even the self-love in Lucifer is God's. Lucifer turns love against its true source. Free beings can do that. We are all capable of buying into the illusion (which is, literally nothing) to the point that we reject and act against the only thing that is real in us. 

We, here on earth, need to recognise and know that which is believed by all in heaven
That we are sources of nothing.
That all the good in us flows in from Heaven, and
All evil in us flows in from hell.
Why would people of faith pray (or agnostics desire the common good) if they did not know this already? The 'Logos' (the Divine within) is at work in us whether we are aware of it or not.

“I have talked with angels about the conjunction of heaven with the human race, and I said that, while the man of the Church declares that all good is from God, and that angels are with man, yet few believe that angels are conjoined to man, still less that they are in his thought and affection. To this the angels replied that they know that there is such a belief and even such a mode of speaking in the world, and especially, to their surprise, within the Church, where yet there is the Word to teach men about heaven and its conjunction with man.
Nevertheless, there IS such a conjunction that man is unable to think the least thing apart from the spirits adjoined to him, and on this his spiritual life depends. They said that the cause of ignorance of this matter is man's belief that he lives from himself, without a connection with the Creator of life; and that he does not know that this connection exists by means of the heavens; and yet if that connection were broken man would instantly fall down dead.
If man believed, as is really true, that all good is from the Lord and all evil from hell, he would not make the good in him a matter of merit nor would evil be imputed to him; for he would then look to the Lord in all the good he thinks and does, and all the evil that inflows would be cast down to hell whence it comes. But because man does not believe that there is any influx into him either from heaven or from hell, and so supposes that all the things that he thinks and wills are in himself, and therefore from himself, he appropriates the evil to himself, and the inflowing good he defiles with merit.”

Emanuel Swedenborg, ‘Heaven and Hell’ §302

Michael Egnor: The Evidence against Materialism


Stephen Meyer: God and the Origin of the Universe

Tom Campbell: The Implications of Virtual Reality for Humanity




.
       



Friday, 14 June 2019

FULL-ON WAR AGAINST THE HUMAN MIND

.


Today, on the BBC News website we read that ...


A ban on adverts featuring "harmful gender stereotypes" or those which are likely to cause "serious or widespread offence" has come into force.


Let's keep it simple.

A "ban on stereotypes" is, in reality (and truth), a forbidding of difference. Today women are to regard themselves as men with tits and vaginas and men are women with penises. Any apparent differences between sexes (or races, or nations) is superficial, unimportant and not to be expressed.

The lie-ridden war against the human mind is waged on two fronts, by presenting:


1) Ideas (and associated persons) that we must HATE

We are directed towards who and what to hate by the presentation of evils, often great evils. By great deceptions/false flag terror those that we must hate are defined for us.


2) Ideas (and associated persons) that we must LOVE.


The Divine Creator affirms all. The nature of Divine LOVE is selflessness. 

Our rulers are Luciferians. Luciferians oppose the Divine. They love only themselves and their project.

They direct us towards who and what to love by imitating the Creator. They do not yet possess our souls so they have no choice if they intend to win.

Their agenda is delivered with sweet words and packaged in fake love and caring.

Obsessive equalitarianism should be familiar to us now.

It used to be called 'Communism', it remains 'Communism' and it has always failed because we eventually understand that the people who sold us the product were insincere. Our 'friends' were tyrants-on-the-make and the 'equality' agenda was their instrument for successfully seducing its target prey.

The real purpose of obsessive equalitarian agendas is to destroy natural human bonds and the social cohesion that will tend to organise itself against any oppressor.

We are being farmed by real tyrants and this kind of shit is how they control us.

The ruling elite that control the entire political system and media have, over the past decade, concentrated a massively increased proportion of the world's wealth into their own hands. But money is never enough for them.

Again we must be clear. They are Luciferians. They already largely direct the actions of our bodies. 

Understand that these people intend to own our very souls. 

They intend to decide who will live and who will die.

The BBC and nearly all the established authorities we are encouraged to respect support the diabolical agenda, the war of the ruling elite against humanity. 

We do not see the rulers but those we do see are their engineers (clueless, admittedly, though many of them may be).

Our enemy is right here.

At home in our own countries.

Shouting in our ears every day.

P.S. Let us also recognise that Divine Love exists above and within the duality so described and that it is through the recognition, experiencing, acceptance and the rejection of the evils described that we regenerate ourselves into right relationship with the Divine. We inhabit a universe that is surely created to process souls in the direction of what is good and true. For all the intense machinations of the enemy, it appears that this corner of the universe is, thankfully, doing its job.

Yes, the enemy is shouting in our ears every day.

It is also active within our own being every time we fail to love. 

Anyone who wins this, the essential war, cannot lose one way or another. Because from light, darkness can only run or be destroyed.


.

Wednesday, 17 April 2019

CHRIST OUT, LUCIFER IN? NOTRE-DAME AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE McGUFFIN

.

Today on the BBC News Channel journalists (I use the term loosely) have taken up somebody's suggestion that the reconstructed Notre Dame Cathedral should encapsulate and project new, modern concepts like "environmentalism" and "climate change awareness". 
Perhaps there should be a wonderful garden on the reconstructed Notre Dame roof? 

Passers-by in Paris are asked for their reaction to this bold idea.
"Oh yes, yes, yes, wonderful, yes..." were the broadcast responses.

If any of this comes to pass, Notre Dame will be effectively a celebration of New-World-Order globalist spirituality. That is, the Cathedral will have been effectively rededicated to Lucifer, the true god of our Judeo-Masonic rulers.

Expect thousands of hours of airtime to be given over to such "exciting ideas" during the coming few years. This is the kind of a Cathedral the big donors want. If the past is any guide to the present they will get it.

Only WE can stop this happening.

THE CLIMATE McGUFFIN

The McGuffin:
In fiction, a MacGuffin is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or another motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The MacGuffin's importance to the plot is not the object itself, but rather its effect on their characters, their motivations and other outcomes beyond the narrative itself.


We are being encouraged to believe that unless we do something big NOW, life on earth could end during the next 12 years. 
To demonstrate that man-made-CO2-driven 'Climate Change' and the coming, much-vaunted  'Extinction Crisis'  is nonsense, one could link to numerous serious scientists, including Nobel prizewinners, who say exactly this. One could also point out that there is no peer-reviewed paper based on real data that begins to support the kind of hysteria to which we are subject on a daily basis. 

I could argue as many, including Lord Monckton, do ... that the Climate Change McGuffin is a device for the facilitation of the implementation of a global taxation system and, hence global governance.That if your aim is to instal a global government, you need a "global problem" with which to justify your agenda.

However, there is a simpler instrument for demonstrating the absolute bullsh*t to which we are being subjected. That instrument is ordinary, human COMMON SENSE.

Carbon Dioxide constitutes 0.04% of the gas in our atmosphere.

That is, ONE PART IN TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED of the air we breathe is CO2.

2,500 is fifty packs of cards (with 2 cards/pack removed). So imagine 50 packs of cards on your kitchen table if you can. Remove ONE CARD from one pack. This card compared to the total number of cards represents how much of our atmosphere is made up of this deadly toxin that might cause all life on earth to end quite shortly.
Imagine now the scientifically-stated worst case nightmare scenario ... that by the end of the century the fraction of this gas (sorry, forgot to say ... this is the gas that all vegetatable life relies on to live and thrive) increases by 50% from 400ppm to 600 ppm (parts per million).

.... that would be ONE AND A HALF PLAYING CARDS out of 50 packs.

Is it not simply ridiculous to image that this transparent gas, this tiny fraction of our atmospheric environment could possibly have such a definitive effect on global temperatures and the survival of life on earth?

Surely common sense alone should be enough for any sensible person to dismiss this bullsh*t.

And that's without mentioning the fact that the 'scientific' Climate Models that predict the coming nightmares ...

1) IGNORE THE SUN AS A POSSIBLE DRIVER OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

You know ... that rather large yellow thing up in the sky whose surface and various emissions are continually changing?
When scientists do not factor the sun into their weather climate models, what does your own common sense tell you about those scientists and those who fund their "research"?

2) IGNORE CHANGES IN THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE JET STREAM AS A POTENTIAL CAUSE OF CHANGE.

Enough of this carbon-footprint sh*t already.

Enough.

And enough of roof gardens on Notre Dame too. Let France reconstruct a building in which people want to pray to God rather than palpitate over the dangers posed by CO2 climate unicorns.

Monday, 4 March 2019

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR GOD ( Part Two)

.


QUANTUM ANOMALIES

Until quite recently no 'big picture' vision of our material reality existed that could explain the mind-boggling anomalies that necessarily arise from quantum physics theory. Even the creators of the theory, who could be fairly called geniuses, could not explain these phenomena.

The most familiar of these quantum effects are:
1) 'Entanglement' … whereby change imposed on one of a pair of 'entangled' particles causes instantaneous change in the other no matter how far apart the particles are at the time of the imposed change. This implies the (seemingly) impossible, that information travels from one particle to the other at effectively infinite speed (under all other circumstances nothing can travel faster than light [i.e. at more than 3 x 10^8 m/s]). To “understand” this problem students are introduced to the concept of “non-locality”, meaning that a particle is “somewhere” but not in the sense we usually imagine. A non-explanation that doesn't help at all.

2) The alternately 'particle-like' or wave-like' behaviour of photons or electrons in the Young's Slits experiment, depending on whether we are observing the particles or we are not.
Both behaviours present materialist-attuned minds with an impossible conundrum.
Although some of the great Physicists of the early 20th Century did sense a solution, they could not, at that time, extrapolate the basic idea into a credible and coherent overview. 

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” 

Max Planck

Today a model of reality exists that makes these phenomena comprehensible in a fairly straightforward manner. This model is called 'The Simulation Model'.


THE SIMULATION MODEL

The universe we inhabit is a 'Virtual Reality', much like the ones we can now create ourselves only (obviously) much, much more powerful.
When you play a video game the street scene you engage with is not real, the jungle you are chased through is not real, the 'people' trying to shoot you are not real, the avatar you control is not real. 
All these things are simply data delivered to the interface with which you, the player, are engaging.

The only things that are real are your consciousness sending signals to the computer and the computer program that you are engaging with.

Similarly, according to the 'Simulation Model', only your consciousness and the consciousness of the 'creator' of the virtual reality are real. In this more sophisticated 'video game' you consciousness is embedded in your avatar (physical body). It must also be connected to the 'creator'.
By this model we realise that
THERE IS NO MATERIAL UNIVERSE. THERE IS NO EARTH. THERE ARE NO STARS. YOU HAVE NO BODY AND NOR DOES ANYBODY ELSE.
ALL THESE THINGS ARE ILLUSIONS RENDERED TO THE ONLY REAL THING THAT EXISTS (OR CAN EXIST) …. CONSCIOUSNESS … IN THIS CASE YOURS.

The anomalies associated with quantum physics now disappear. There are no anomalies. The only reason these anomalies existed in the first place is because we thought that space and time are real.

SPACE AND TIME ARE NOT REAL.

If space and time are not real then the entangled particles are not separated by massive distances, they are separated by the illusion of distance and their identical behaviour has been fixed by the program at source at their moment of creation. Similarly for the Young's Slits particles it IS only the observation of the probability distribution (wave function of the 'particle') generated by the program that makes the particle an actual particle in the first place. Before it is observed the material universe is a FIELD OF POTENTIAL, a probability function, that only observation and (according to physicist Tom Campbell) its associated intention fix as a particular (virtual) reality.
...and isn't this what mystics have been telling us for millenia ? … that our “physical reality” is all an ILLUSION.
An illusion created for your consciousness to experience, for the best possible progress towards perfection of souls. One's intention plays a crucial role not only in one's own personal development but also in the development of our shared virtual reality.

This a pretty big idea but, for me it has got to be essentially true or, at the very least, the best model of reality we have yet invented. 
The simple reason for this is that this 'virtual reality' model accords with the best/most accurate Physics that is out there. Quantum theory. Given this reality we can now define what Physics is with clarity. PHYSICS IS THE RULE SET OF THIS VIRTUAL REALITY.

OUR CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN THIS VIRTUAL REALITY

Because of our illusory environment we are forced to try and describe this 'virtual reality' in terms of time and space (which don't really exist), simply because we have no other language with which to imagine and express relationship. So here goes ...
If one calls one's conscious self the SOUL, then our soul collects data from OUTSIDE OURSELVES (the external world, including our body) via our 5 senses. Everything within that 'external' virtual reality, including our own avatar, is subject to the rules of Physics (and their much more complex chemical and biological extrapolations).
It is also clear from this model that our consciousness (soul) must also collect data continuously from the program to maintain the illusion that is the 'simulation'. WE MUST BE CONNECTED PERMANENTLY WITH SOURCE/THE PROGRAM or, as most of us prefer to call it … GOD.
Beyond this we must work things out for ourselves. The program allows us to operate within our virtual reality as though we were independent sources of thought, feeling,  spirit and action. Atheists will believe this as fact … that we are source … that there is nothing other than “me” and what I see outside myself.
Those who have had spiritual experiences of any kind tend towards a different view. For myself I have experienced the transcendent ecstasy the same as (I believe) 'Near Death' experiencers familiarly describe. I have also felt entities appear to crash into my body, I heard them laughing until they realised I could hear them. I heard one urgently say, “Shh, shh. He can hear us” before all went quiet. So neither the highest psychological authorities nor the Russian army will tell me that angels and demons do not exist.

I have come to believe that the nature of our engagement with our creator and with the eternal realms (that is the source of data arriving into our consciousness from WITHIN) operates according to a system very like the divinely-created system described by Emanuel Swedenborg over 200 years ago.


It is amazing to notice that some of Swedenborg's statements were very 'quantum-like' indeed ...

God occupies all space non-spatially and all time non-temporally.”from “Divine Love and Wisdom”

I have visited other earths within the universe and discussed many issues with the humans that inhabited those earths. This is possible because space and time are not as we imagine them but rather a matter of our inner condition.”from Other Planets”

Finally, we cannot help but notice that Physics is starting to look a lot like Theology. This is something that I hope all readers will find encouraging.

Most of the detailed 'virtual reality' information in this blog I learned from “My Big T.O.E.” (Theory of Everything) by Tom Campbell. His trilogy (in one compendium) is 850 pages long but easy reading for the layperson. I would also recommend trying one of his many YouTube talks to fill out more detail regarding 'The Simulation Model' and its implications.
Finally:
I have talked with angels about the conjunction of heaven with the human race, and I said that, while the man of the Church declares that all good is from God, and that angels are with man, yet few believe that angels are conjoined to man, still less that they are in his thought and affection. To this the angels replied that they know that there is such a belief and even such a mode of speaking in the world, and especially, to their surprise, within the Church, where yet there is the Word to teach men about heaven and its conjunction with man.
Nevertheless, there IS such a conjunction that man is unable to think the least thing apart from the spirits adjoined to him, and on this his spiritual life depends. They said that the cause of ignorance of this matter is man's belief that he lives from himself, without a connection with the Creator of life; and that he does not know that this connection exists by means of the heavens; and yet if that connection were broken man would instantly fall down dead.
If man believed, as is really true, that all good is from the Lord and all evil from hell, he would not make the good in him a matter of merit nor would evil be imputed to him; for he would then look to the Lord in all the good he thinks and does, and all the evil that inflows would be cast down to hell whence it comes. But because man does not believe that there is any influx into him either from heaven or from hell, and so supposes that all the things that he thinks and wills are in himself, and therefore from himself, he appropriates the evil to himself, and the inflowing good he defiles with merit.”
Emanuel Swedenborg, ‘Heaven and Hell’ §302


PS  Another simple way that the material universe matches the 'virtual reality' model is this. In our own computer generated illusions (as seen on our computer screens) the minimum image width is one pixel and the minimum time interval for any image to exist in the screen is the "refresh time". Now, given that during a single refresh cycle a virtual particle on the screen can only occupy a single pixel, if we divide that pixel width by the refresh time we get distance/time = a MAXIMUM SPEED at which anything can possibly travel across the screen.
Similarly, in our own virtual reality all particles are constrained to a maximum velocity through the virtual reality, in our case, the speed of light. 
Most interestingly Rupert Sheldrake reveals here that over certain decades during the last century the value of this maximum speed has occasionally changed by discrete amounts from one constant value to another. This scientifically recorded reality suggests that there are conscious entities overseeing the technical aspects of our virtual reality(universe) and occasionally tweaking the value of this number ... presumably to improve performance of some important element within the system.


.

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR GOD (Part One)


.


NATURAL LAW


Natural Law encompasses those laws of the universe that govern us whether we like it or not.

The first principle of Natural law is that:

    EVERYTHING IS A PRODUCT OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Regarding humankind's creations this is obvious. Everything we have made had to be imagined first. However, regarding the material universe, the idea that this too is the product of a creative consciousness is not necessarily universally accepted. The tendency in modern culture is such that we are urged to believe, often by distinguished professors, that the material world and even conscious life itself, just popped into existence as a consequence of purposeless convulsions and the random actions of an inanimate universe; that consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of electro-chemical activity in the brains of sentient beings. Beyond these neural signals there is no consciousness. Whatsoever.
Thus the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe is reduced to being a by-product of sodium and potassium ions acting across cell membranes and there we have it:

the dominant modern dogma; it is not consciousness that causes body chemistry, it is body chemistry that causes consciousness.

However hard one tries not to misrepresent this view of reality (that the material world creates consciousness rather than vice versa) it is difficult not to fall over laughing at the wild lunacy of such an idea. Finding certain books of the Old Testament morally reprehensible just will not do in making the case, Professor Dawkins, even though you may be right on many narrow (and irrelevant) points.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Given the weight of propaganda to which most people have been exposed denying God's existence, a case for God will be briefly stated below.

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR GOD

PART ONE: PROBABILITY AND COMMON SENSE

Firstly, the way that the 'Theory of Evolution' is delivered to the public mind is heavy with the implication that we no longer need the concept of a 'Creator' for life (and, therefore anything else) to exist.
Just yesterday morning (03/03/19) Nicky Campbell, host of the BBC's Sunday  public debate "Big Questions" (while boasting about the primacy of 'free speech' on his programme) said "there are only two debates that are closed here, 'Evolution' and 'Climate Change'." In Campbell's newspeak "evolution" does not mean 'evolution' in its true meaning but rather that all new species and life itself came in to being as a result of random genetic mutations.

It is important that we be reminded that The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING useful to say about the origin of life … as Darwin himself admitted. 'Evolution' applies only to future development within a particular species, as is quite obvious (the afflicted/lesser specimens tend not to get the girl). The fossil record demonstrates no convincing evidence (some scientists say no evidence at all) to support the idea that new species have been created by any kind of 'evolutionary'/genetic mutation process.

Given that there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, this equates to a maximum of roughly 750MB of data storage capacity per DNA. There is (apparently) an amoeba with a gene set equivalent to 80GB. Genetic science remains poorly understood. However, the idea that anything remotely like this level of ordered self-replicating material could just “happen” via random collisions of inanimate particles is laughable. The presence of code in biological matter, as in everything else, surely requires a creative intelligence to produce it.
In the days before DNA and genes had been even heard of Darwin posited his theory about the 'survival of the fittest'; the adaptations to environment and developments within species that take place in the real world. His observations codify simple, and now fairly obvious, realities.
Many decades after the first presentation of Darwin's theory, random genetic mutations were suggested as the creative cause of entirely new species. There is little to zero fossil evidence supporting this. As a scientific statement it amounts to no more than speculation, as many professional scientists aver (see documentary below).
In fact, in 1988 it was demonstrated that the massive DNA molecule contains a program within itself that can create a cell's own genetic mutations and that these mutations are a response to information entering the cell from its environment either directly, via a cell’s detection of an external agent, or indirectly via the body's own chemical response to a perceived environmental change.
Variations within a species may be random but the evidence indicates that genetic mutations are not. Therefore this 'random mutation' argument is unsatisfactory as used when positing a theory of the 'origin of species' and random happenstance is entirely inappropriate when attempting to address the issue of the origin of life itself.
Darwin also said that proof of a 'Cambrian explosion' would prove fatal to this idea. Well, it has since been demonstrated that there was a 'Cambrian explosion'.
At the very least let it be admitted that there is much more going on during processes of creation than 'Darwinism' has ever and almost certainly ever will explain.
Those who believe otherwise subscribe to a religion in all but name; one founded, like some of those it seeks to replace, on the most meagre of physical evidence. 
It should be noted that even if it were proved that mutations (which never, in single instance, have been demonstrated to have increased [as ‘evolution’ demands] the information in a genome) have created the great diversity of species we find on earth then even that could not be presented as some kind of disproof of the need for a Creator because the greater issue is our difficulty in explaining the appearance of the original and first self-replicating genome.

It was interesting to see on UK News a few years ago, a professor, on finding a Neanderthal cave marking (that looked like a 'noughts and crosses' grid scored into a cave wall), remarking that this “exciting discovery” proves that Neanderthal man was “much more intelligent than we had imagined”.
If a noughts and crosses grid being (essentially) code or data, is a sign of high intelligence then of what does that make the approximately 1.5 Gbytes of data in human DNA a sign? Are we really expected to believe that some other idea like 'the survival of the fittest' or even merely 'the will of the material universe to exist' has driven creation? And is there not philosophical sleight-of-hand going on here; the 'will to survive' itself being surely, primarily, a kind of consciousness?

The above arguments relate merely to the creation of life. Apart from that most obvious and self-evident observation (.. that nothing comes from nothing ..), beyond this there are many other known facts that severely contradict the materialist 'random-happenstance' thesis of creation.

A) The Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe

Firstly, know that there are an estimated 1086 fundamental particles in the entire universe. This means if one were to select a particular proton, say, randomly out of all the particles anywhere in the universe then the odds against selecting that particular particle would be 1/1086.  (This is equivalent to buying a National Lottery ticket 12 weeks in a row at odds of 14-million-to-one-against and having THE ONLY winning ticket for every single one of the 12 weeks ...rather low odds, you must agree)

Bearing that in mind, here are just four examples of physical constants that, giving below the maximum deviation for the real/actual value quoted, would either prevent the universe from existing or make it unsuitable for any form of life.

The ratio of Electrons: Protons. It has been calculated that the existence of the material universe would be impossible were there to be a deviation from reality by a factor greater than 1 in 1037
Likewise:
  • Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1/1040
  • Expansion Rate of Universe 1/1055
  • Cosmological Constant1/10120 (this is 1 with 120 zeros after it, a number ten billion, trillion, trillion times greater than the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe)
The implication of this last ratio, if true, is staggering. Here, from a collaborator of Stephen Hawking and one of the world's most famous scientists in his own right:
What is the probability that, purely by chance, the Universe had an initial singularity looking even remotely as it does? The probability is less than one part in 10123. ...What does that say about the precision that must be involved in setting up the Big Bang? It is really very, very extraordinary. I have illustrated the probability in a cartoon of the Creator, finding a very tiny point in that phase space which represents the initial conditions from which our Universe must have evolved if it is to resemble remotely the one we live in. To find it, the Creator has to locate that point in phase space to an accuracy of one part in 10123. If I were to put one zero on each elementary particle in the Universe, I still could not write the number down in full. It is a stupendous number.
(from The Large, the Small and the Human Mind by Professor Roger Penrose 1997: 47, 48)
i.e. the probability against this level of precision occurring randomly is massively more than one part in the total number of subatomic particles in the universe (which is estimated at 1086).

 B) Protein Folding

Proteins are so hard to make that in nature they are never formed except in already living cells. Some scientists have asked how likely is it to find a protein by chance if there was a pre-biotic soup with all the necessary amino acids present and available for interacting with each other for billions of years?
An estimate of this probability is carried out here.* The estimated figure arrived at is 1 chance in 10164. Given this number no serious scientist could make the argument that this protein creation event happened by chance.
The only possible escape from these impossible numbers for the determined atheist is to resort to the 'infinite number of universes' theory … that there are an infinite number of universes in existence and infinity being an infinitely larger number than 10120 or 10164 means that these events will definitely occur somewhere and therefore we just happen to inhabit one (literally) incredibly fortunate universe.
It is interesting that the mathematical falsehoods slipped into “proofs” of false statements (1=2, for example) involve the use of the concept of 'infinity' (in this case when we 'divide both sides of the equation by zero').
Of course, no evidence for the existence of all these unimaginable squadrillions of pointless universes can ever possibly be produced. Yet numerous weighty documentaries have been produced by the BBC and others advancing this theory. The typical viewer will understand none of this but the accompanying commentary asserting that “we have no need for a Creator”, repeated (as it is) time after number, will inevitably settle as intended into the conscious or subconscious mind of the target audience. 


This author rejects the 'infinite universes' concept and accepts the simpler premise that there is, indeed, a Creator and first cause of our universe; a consciousness of unfathomable intelligence and power that has made all that is … that consciousness is primary and, extrapolating somewhat, that our own consciousness is somehow in intimate relationship with this Creator-consciousness; that, quite possibly, our own impartial observing consciousness is somehow a small part or replica of the great 'All', our Divine source. As a drop of seawater is to the ocean in which it moves are we to the Divine?

So, Natural Law is God's Law and ….. there IS a creative consciousness behind all that is, a (what we commonly call) God.

Whether the authority exercised within organised religions is a good idea or not is a different matter.

Furthermore since each of us, self-evidently, is possessed of an individual consciousness and since this consciousness is not merely reactive but also creative, it should be obvious that we must take full responsibility for its use in our comprehension of the world and its application in creating our own favoured reality.

If those in authority work hard at keeping us ill-informed and confused about important issues that impact on our destiny it is reasonable to conclude that this authority is using what it knows about consciousness and Natural Law in service of something other than the common good.

Please watch professional scientists deliver the arguments presented above at greater length and in more detail. This high-quality documentary was made by a follower of Islam. It is interesting to me that even when a YouTube search using this video's EXACT title is made the film link appears 12th in the search list. This indicates to me that someone is trying to bury this powerful documentary.

Watch it and arm yourselves with this information. The case for 'God' is overwhelming. The case against a tissue of .... as usual, unfortunately ... establishment lies!

Somebody obviously wants you to obey only external authorities rather than to trust the Divine Logos implanted by the Creator in your very heart. 

... and why on earth would anyone want you to do that?

*



.