The Scientific Case for God Part I

Kevin Boyle – No One to Vote For March 4, 2019


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:


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.


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.



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  
–> Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1/1040
–> Expansion Rate of Universe 1/1055
–> Cosmological Constant
1/10120 (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?



Also see: The Scientific Case for God Part II

Teacher (physics/maths), would-be Christian, pro-community, anti-hierarchy.

5 responses to “The Scientific Case for God Part I”

  1. Francis Crick did not think the DNA doublr helix could have occured by chance.

    In the double slit experiment (where single patcles are fired in sequence, yet stil map out an interference pattern typical of wave action), indicates that these sub-atomic particles think.

    In other words all matter is in some way “alive”.

    You could call that God.

  2. This:
    “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. ”

    And This:
    “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.”

    I think they’re Very Significant – Is it (((Them))) again? Their ‘religion’ is Very twisted remember.

    Pity this place doesn’t allow for conversations…

  3. The question who is (((them))) … is most interesting. Whoever ‘they’ are it is likely that they are not quite as we imagine. Liars who own this earth will surely go to great lengths to misrepresent exactly who and what they are. The obvious Jewish connection and the obvious foulness of Orthodox Talmudism and the relationship of these to global overlords cannot be the whole picture. There is probably something darker amd more cunning behind the swaggering Jewish Satanists that bark in our public squares.
    The “Jewish people” and “anti-Semitism” operate together as weaponised thought-forms that protect our topmost rulers, whoever they are. History demonstrates that when people have had enough of their rulers it is real living ordinaryJewish people that get thrown under the bus leaving the plebs with the impression that something big and important has changed … but it somehow never does..

    The pyramid topped with the “Eye of Horus” on the US dollar bill suggests to us that the old Egyptian/Babylonian Gods (versions of Lucifer) may be a dominant part of the topmost religion. Perhaps, as many Russian thinkers assert, this world system of power (rulers protected by Jews set up as human shields around them) has existed since the days of Ashkenaton 3,400 years ago.

    Perhaps, as Ahmed Osman asserts, Ashkenaton, who was expelled from Egypt (and his position as Pharaoh) by the established Egyptian priest class (for insisting that the old Gods did not exist, that there was truly only ONE God) … perhaps this revolutionary Pharaoh Ashkenaton WAS Moses. Perhaps he and his people (the ‘hebrews’ who were expelled along with him) were sustained in Sinai by the priest class that had expelled them and the entire system/partnership of unchallengeable dominion was invented and installed during this short epoch?

  4. Who created the creator?

  5. Meaningless question.
    Outside the programmed linear time in this virtual-reality material universe (i.e. in the eternal world) there is no time in the sense that we experience time on earth. All who have experienced these realms report this.