God Exists - Absolute Proof
This is an article I wrote for a magazine
The Irony of the question; Does God Exist, is that if it weren’t for religion we wouldn’t have to ask it – everyone would know.
‘Cogito ergo sum’ I think therefore I am. Of nothing else can I be certain. Those are the immortal words of 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes and there are few who, fully understanding what he meant, will or indeed can disagree. If Descartes was right, then of course we can’t be certain of anything except that we exist and that being the case I can’t prove God.
But I can identify the criteria by which the scientific establishment accepts fall-short proof as absolute proof, present my evidence to prove God, that measures up to their inexact standards and demand that the detractors, whose inexact science founded in the same prejudice that evidences their non-existent god is destroying our species – so here we go, are you ready?
My website, www.messianiclaw.com was prepared without a section on the proof of God’s existence. In other parts of the website I promised, when I got round to it, to include this proof, but at the time of the promise I didn’t know how I would do it. Even now as I, at last, begin the task of setting out the proof I don’t know what I am going to write but I know the time has come because, well, shall we just say; the signs are there.
As I write it is the eve of New Year 2007, someone bought me a copy of Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’ for which I found myself having to write a letter to the New Scientist magazine which I copy below:
Proof that God Exists or
Richard Dawkins is wrong – again.
Someone bought me a copy of Richard Dawkins latest book ‘The God Delusion’ for Christmas because; ‘I know you read that kind of crap’. Actually, although the genre fits in with my preferred reading material I would not myself have bought the book because long ago I realised that despite Dawkins’ obvious sincerity, there is a fundamental flaw in his logic, which nullifies the conclusions he draws from the plethora of evidence that he painstakingly assembles to support his prejudice. I’ll give you an example of what I mean:
Chapter 4 of his book is entitled ‘Why there almost certainly is no God’.
Here we have a university professor, an avowed ‘atheist’ (note the inverted commas) expressing an opinion on a controversial subject for which he is eminently prejudiced and therewith tarnishing his reputation. It’s like saying 4.999 is almost certainly 5. It isn’t, 4.999 is no more 5 than 2 is 5 or a hundred billion is 5.
Another flaw in his logic is evidenced in chapter 2 under the sub heading of ‘The Poverty of Agnosticism’ where he berates the fence sitters (Agnostics) for not having the courage of better men to be atheists. Dawkins lists seven stages of belief that he calls the Spectrum of Probabilities, which range between 1. knowing something exists and 7 knowing something does not exist. Dawkins puts himself at no 6 “Very low probability but short of zero. De facto atheist ‘I cannot know for certain but I think that God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’” That’s an agnostic and no amount of reasoning, excusing, wishful thinking, emotional verbiage, insulting people who won’t agree with him or gap jumping is going to change that fact.
Just because Dawkins has (in his own mind at least) 4.999, he cannot demand that the rest of us accept it as 5 because the balance is a meagre .001. Go back and find the .001 Professor and if you can’t simply ask and I’ll give it to you. When you have it, trust me, you will know that there is a God. Put Him back into your formula Professor because until you do your 4.999 is just as wrong as the pope’s 5 and just as damaging.
All the evidence Dawkins has accumulated over the years (In my case preaching to the converted, I could double his haul) adds up to prove that religion is man created nonsense, which is not the same as there is no God. When he makes the final adjustment and adds the .001 to his otherwise well thought out formula he will find himself with a far better product than the imperfect one he has been peddling for the past few decades.
Incidentally, Dawkins’ ‘Selfish Gene’ results from his inability to bridge the gap. Selfish suggests that the gene cares, it does not. Genes replicate because the forces acting upon them compel them to do so, forces in the service of Almighty God.
Ask and thou shalt receive.
There should be a law prohibiting people from making money under false pretenses, in fact there is, why doesn’t it apply to Dawkins? There is nothing in Dawkins’ book that proves the non-existence of God or that God is ‘delusion’ but of course like everything else in the Creation - even the apparent negatives – there are reasons for that book and certainly one of them is for me to sit down right now and refute it.
I shall not quote Dawkins’ verbatim because frankly I can’t be bothered to wade through his, at times (necessarily) monotonous prose, to find the exact quotations but the gist of what he was wondering is why God must be a complex being, why must He be the Grand Designer the Grand builder, maintainer and sustainer. Dawkins seems to think that the Universe is so unfathomably huge and complex that it confounds the powers of credulity to accept the God of religion as reality. The only solution to that conundrum it would seem, from Dawkins standpoint, is that they who do, delude themselves.
Dawkins is very fond of simplicity so here’s a simple answer to that problem; he who can, can, he who knows how knows how, don’t judge God by your own limitations.
Dawkins asks, ‘Why can’t the cause of the Creation be the simplest of beings rather than the most complex?’ (Dawkins is obviously trying to fit the cause of all things into his Darwinian Regression theory, a basket into which he has put most if not all of his eggs, out of which he is making his livelihood). Why not indeed? It’s as good a question as any, I’m certainly not rejecting it but I have to say the evidence to support a positive conclusion is as conclusive as the pope’s evidence to prove his own version – subjective and for the most part erroneous. Be that as it may, let’s take that question of Dawkins to its logical conclusion or perhaps we should say; what’s the opposite of conclusion – genesis?
Dawkins wants to regress and reduce so let’s pull in that Universe to the infinitesimal point just before the Big Bang. Have you done that? Easy wasn’t it? But it’s not the beginning, something is now waiting to explode, what is it? How did it get here? Dawkins doesn’t know and his ability to further regress and reduce has reached its limit. Not only has his empirical reasoning come to a halt but his theoretical reasoning also. He can’t, even theoretically, reduce ‘almost nothing’ beyond the state of almost nothing without an act of hypocrisy, so I’ll do it for him - nothing.
In the beginning there was nothing. What is nothing – empty space? No, empty space is not nothing, empty space has dimensions. So I want you to stop thinking and when you do I want you to find a way to consider, that nothing, about which you are now considering, is the product of everything that came before you were born. I know I’m asking you to do the impossible because the very process contaminates the result. Never mind, do your best. Have you got an idea, no matter how imperfect, of nothing? You have? Well all right – that’s God.
It’s not my God, it’s Dawkins’ God. Dawkins is the one refusing to accept the God of religion so the only alternative is nothing. Consider the logic:
There is a Universe and there is me giving it value. I am thinking – Cogito ergo sum – so there is something. What caused that something;? There are only two alternative possibilities; 1 Something caused the Universe or 2 Nothing caused the Universe.
I doubt now that even Dawkins will claim that the Universe was caused by nothing but even if he does, it’s alright, because I will accept it as his God. I didn’t give God His nature. I can accept that God is nothing as easily as I can accept Him as infinite perfection, after all, one subjective opinion based on ignorance is as good as another.
There is a Universe as perceived by my five senses and as determined by my brain. I am incapable of accepting that anything in the Universe is without cause ergo the Universe itself must have a cause, that cause is my God and it too must exist.
Do you still think Dawkins is going to say that the cause of the Universe is nothing? Unlikely isn’t it? But if he does I’m going to say that it is God because it is the cause of everything and if he backs down on his original assessment to claim that the Universe was caused by something after all, I’m going to accuse him or introducing religion into the equation, in other words, his own ignorance. Why should his ignorance be more acceptable than the pope’s?
Perhaps you think I am practicing mind exercises here with no practical reason for doing so, there is nothing the Human Race can gain from them. You will be wrong, there is everything to be gained. The Human Race is on the precipice of self destruction. Unlike Dawkins I know there is a God, who will try to do something to save us from our predicament. That something, I believe, will be a human being into whom he will program the solutions, a messianic figure.
At the beginning of this article I said; if it weren’t for religion everybody would know there is a God, and you thought, ‘No I wouldn’t, I might believe more strongly but I wouldn’t know’ and so conclude that I exaggerated and am therefore wrong. I’m not wrong, or perhaps I should say, I’m not wrong if judged with the criteria used to determine empirical scientific truth.
Do you believe in Black Holes? If Stephen Hawking tells you they exist (and he does) will you believe him? And when he gives you the evidence which seems convincing and unequivocal will you know as he seems to do, that Black Holes exist? There is no direct evidence to prove that Black Holes exist, the evidence that supports their existence is all indirect. People believe Black holes exist because of the evidence supplied by people like Stephen Hawking and they know Black Holes exist because they’ve jumped from believe to know because it is in their own interest to ‘know’.
We humans make those leaps from belief to knowledge all the time without justification, why do you think that some of us have difficulty believing in God? Why can’t we all take the jump and believe in God?
Do you have a brain? Sure? Have you seen it, touched it, smelt it, heard it, tasted it? No? Nor me either. How then do we know we have a brain? The evidence suggests it and we trust the evidence. The evidence to prove God is no less compelling – we exist, something caused us to exist ergo God. I think, I hear, I smell, I taste, I feel, I see ergo brain. Indirect evidence, there is no difference in the value of the evidence yet still we can’t believe in God. The reason is the religious establishment. Religion has tarnished the image of God for personal gain. ‘God is infinitely loving merciful and fair and if you doubt it you will suffer infinite and eternal torment’ that was the teaching I received as a child in my Catholic school. Common sense alone proves that the God of religious institutionism is a concoction of devious human minds, that use fear to browbeat otherwise intelligent people into discarding logic and reason, in favour of myth.
Today 3 January 2007 is my 60th birthday and for every one of those years since I have been conscious of my own existence (November 1950, I remember it well) I’ve been thinking about God - even if He is but a concoction of my own mind - and his purpose, if there is one. Religion has played a very big part in my life, my wife would say religion is my life, yet I can honestly and safely put up my hand and state that everything I know about religion leads me to know it is all hogwash - the entire shooting match, rubbish. But I never found a jot of evidence to suggest that God is a myth.
To me, the atheist is as out of touch with reality as the religious institution believer and for the same reasons, all have vested interest in maintaining and sustaining whatever position they hold on the subject. And vested interest contaminates their calculations – even Dawkins (‘Especially Dawkins’ did you say?)
Dawkins has another suggestion other than an anachronism in the fossil record which he says will prove the existence of God. ‘Find an inexplicable leap forward in the evolutionary process’ says Dawkins. ‘The universe, after the Big Bang, evolved by the process of tiny steps along the road of progress.’ The apparent unimaginable and therefore unacceptable complexity of the so-called Creation, according to Dawkins, is the result of billions of years of accumulated simplicity. ‘Many simple processes and the product of those processes, seem, to those who do not understand the process, impossible complexity that defies existence without the input of a sentient mind.’. It’s a fair observation and I’m happy to go along with it as the process by which the physical universe developed but I’m still left with the question that Dawkins cannot answer – why?
Why does the process progress, why does it not regress and why after thousands of years of progression toward the civilization of the Human world does it look now, because of man induced climate disruption, as though the journey toward perfection is going to take a giant leap in the wrong direction?
I think I’ve already shown that there is as much evidence to prove the existence of God as there is to prove anything else but it doesn’t help if we can’t answer the question – why? Trust me, we are going to nail this question and the answer to it once and for all, but so that everyone understands, we need to identify the criteria by which we will determine the answer, meaning the inexact scale and measuring equipment of empirical science.
Do you have a left leg? If not choose another part of your body. Now touch it, look at it, listen to it, smell it, taste it. Is it definitely there? No it isn’t, those are just thoughts created by your senses and your brain. Stop thinking and they cease to exist. You are the only one giving your Creation, Universe, Cosmos whatever you like to call it, value. Your value is the only value that matters. Dawkins talks about a teapot whirling around in Outer space. If the teapot doesn’t know it exists and nobody or thing else knows it exists does it exist. Existence and non-existence have exactly the same value if not perceived by sensors and a sentient mind, none at all.
Everything is illusion but illusion is your reality. Stick a pin in your leg, the pain is just a thought an illusion but illusion or not it is all the reality you need it to be.
Now think of Stephen Hawking and his Black Holes which he claims to have discovered some thousands of light years away – blackness in the sky emitting gamma rays and effecting the orbit of stars beyond their event horizon. Hawking presents his evidence, it is inconclusive but never mind, Black Holes exist.
Why are people including top scientists willing to accept inconclusive evidence for Black Holes but not for God? Come to think of it there are top scientists who don’t accept the reality of Black Holes. Why?
It’s all to do with vested interest. Understand fully what I mean by vested interest and there you have the answer to that all important question. What was it Dawkins said, ‘Find an inexplicable leap in the evolutionary chain and there you have God’ Let’s show him shall we?
Why is Stephen Hawking looking for Black Holes thousands of light years away when he knows those Black Holes cannot in any way directly influence our lives? Why is he looking for evidence he cannot see? There are a number of reasons to do with String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, and the Theory of Everything but if you analyze the reasons for any of this esoteric subject matter through the obvious ones of, puts food on the table, clothes on his back and gains him respect from just about everybody, you will end up with the actual and only true reason; it makes him happy, or at least he hopes it will.
The bottom line for everything that every sentient mind does is its own happiness. We are robots designed for the purpose of happiness. How can we know this? Because we can’t do anything that the brain calculates will result in ultimate and at least relative sadness. By relative sadness I mean that the Human Being can perform an action that will make him or her sad but only as a means of avoiding greater sadness or as a means to obtaining an amount of happiness that will be worth the sacrifice at a later time.
If you will, I want you to pay particular attention to what I am about to write now because it represents the most important scientific discovery of all time. (At which point some scientists and the entire religious establishment, with vested interest in conveying the idea that I am wrong and unable to prove it, will solve their problem in the time honoured tradition of calling me a crank).
You know, I’m sure, that computers understand only two things zeros and ones, everything a computer does is programmed into it in a series of zeros and ones. For those who don’t please either take my word that it is a fact or check it out. Well, life in its entirety is almost as simple. For now I will apply this science to human beings only, because it is they who are destroying the world’s habitat.
The Human Being is programmed with a primary command that we can call its basic nature and this basic command can be summed up in two words:
God, or Dawkins’ Nothing, or whatever, has somehow managed to compile a robot which we identify as a human baby with only one basic instinct - take. The baby takes from its mother’s breast, it will grasp things in its hand instinctively but it must be taught to give. When the baby learns the lesson that it can gain more from giving than from taking it will give but it is only a means to an end, the end being to get.
Generosity, magnanimity, altruism are by-products of the basic nature which have ‘evolved’ (if you like) from the totally selfish nature to take. There is absolutely no morality in any of it. Morality too is an illusion that does not exist in nature.
I know this is repetition from other parts of this site but I also know that everybody will not study the entire site so it is important that I repeat it.
I call it the Messianic Law and it goes like this:
The human being is a robot
Programmed to pursue happiness
In pursuit of happiness the human being is totally and unavoidably selfish
The human being does not have a free will.
This is how the human being functions:
Confronted with a problem the human brain brings its entire life’s experiences and education in the form of its beliefs as the criteria by which it will make a decision. The brain evaluates those beliefs according to the demands of the basic nature which is; ‘When you have decided on the decision which will give you the most happiness – do it.’ The human being is a happiness machine, nothing else. What can we learn from understanding this nature?
That the being responsible for our existence wants us to be happy. That we are victims of our own circumstances. That all human social problems and the solutions to them have their roots in our totally and unavoidably selfish nature. That if we can understand and accept that this is indeed our basic nature we can use the information gained from it to build Paradise Earth. That if we do not understand and accept that this is our nature the human race will annihilate itself.
Now, let me be quite specific about what this means and to get it to sink in I will use an extreme example: If the human being calculates that it is in its personal interest to do so, it will kill, cook and eat its own child. Not will – must.
You would never do that? That is no doubt true but it is only because your brain could never calculate that it is in its best interest to do so. Can you see how big a problem this is? Every time a sentient mind makes a decision it is not only influenced by the basic nature it is determined by the basic nature. The sentient mind cannot make a decision that is ultimately detrimental to itself. Have you got that?
‘The human being can commit suicide and if that’s not detrimental to itself, what is?’
Is that what you are thinking?
Before jumping to conclusions read carefully what I said. The operative word here is ‘ultimately’. Why would someone commit suicide? Because the brain figures out that it would rather be dead than alive. It’s a calculation, the brain calculates how much happiness it will gain from being dead which, providing it does not believe in an after life will be none and it balances that gain or lack of it against the happiness it will have by staying alive. It will then make a decision upon which it must act in favour of most happiness.
No happiness is better than sadness or pain. Fear of death weighs heavily in favour of staying alive which is why most people don’t commit suicide when things are getting them down. And that’s how life works.
Now let’s see if we can’t deal with that suggestion of Dawkins vis a vis the jump in the Darwinian evolutionary chain. To explain this, Dawkins gave as an example of criticism from the religious fraternity who asked how something as complex as a human eye could evolve. ‘What would be the point of half an eye?’ asked the critic to which Dawkins replied, ‘It would be better than no eye’. It’s an answer but is it an answer of convenience to fit Dawkins’ Darwinian needs? The question was , ‘What would be the point?’ and the response is a smart-ass retort that in no way addresses the question. With a bit of effort just about anybody can ‘regress’ anything to a fundamental state that bears no resemblance to the current, transient or final state, fair praise though to the one (Darwin) who noticed that progression by very small stages, happens in nature but it doesn’t answer the question why.
Dawkins has no right to imply that his and Darwin’s failure to answer this question should be put down to ‘It really doesn’t matter’ just because they who have vested interest in Darwin’s theory being wrong are leading the human race up the garden path.
If black holes do exist they have existed for billions of years and we didn’t know it. The black holes themselves didn’t know it either, their existence or otherwise had no effect on us so what does it matter that they did or didn’t exist, existence and non-existence had the same value, none at all. Now that Stephen Hawking is saying that they exist what has changed? Thoughts in our heads, that’s all. And why is Hawking expending cells of grey matter on thoughts about black holes? Ask around, you’ll be given all kinds of answers to that question: ‘He makes his living out of it. He is trying to help the human race. It’s the science for which he is qualified and competent. His calculations lead him in that direction.’
Any all and more of those reasons may be correct but they all lead to one fundamental reason; because it makes him happy - Messianic Law. Sorry for repeating myself but I need it to sink in.
If he doesn’t have a job he doesn’t eat, if the work on offer entails anything other than thinking, he won’t have a job, no job no eat no happy. And exactly the same principle, scientific law, reality, illusion call it what you like, applies to Dawkins who believes/knows there is no God and the pope who believes/knows there is a God – because it makes them happy.
The bottom line is happy, which means that Dawkins is flogging a dead horse as was Karl Marx by telling people there is no God because there is. God exists in people’s minds as surely as black holes exist in Hawking’s mind and for the same reason; believing/ knowing, makes them happy.
You still think I’m playing mind games don’t you?
All the omniscient scientific community has to do is prove that the Messianic Law is false and when they fail, there you have the proof by their own criteria that God exists:
The Messianic Law insist that the purpose of life is happiness because, with our every thought and act we are compelled to pursue it. That being the case there must be or must have been an occasion when a being capable of happiness had a desire for happiness and the ability to pursue happiness in the same place at the exact time in an apparently infinite amount of it.
This is not possible with the fundamental building blocks that support Darwinian Theory; building blocks (like primordial soup, genes, cells) which play whatever part they play in the life cycle, because the forces acting upon them neither know nor care that they behave the way they do. At some point along the line of evolution from fundamental building blocks to human behaviour one has to include intent at which point Darwinian Theory collapses and Creationism takes over. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Although this article may imply annoyance at Richard Dawkins, I have to say it is only a .001 annoyance, the other 4.999 of me is a fan or his. I hope he will try to understand that his own Messianic Law is blurring his otherwise perfect vision, putting him off course and landing in a place which is as wrong as the pope’s.
I have to say that the pope for all the wrong reasons is right about God and Richard, perhaps for the right reasons, is wrong. And He/She/It has a plan.