You are on page 1of 6

First published: 17:47, 2nd October 2014

How Can You Say That God Does Not Exist, Stephen Hawking?

There is no dichotomy between true religion and true science

David Shayler the Christ argues that the leading quantum physicist’s longevity is a miracle while his faith that science will explain all remains misplaced

‘As above, so below’

When I first red the Dan Brown novel, Angels and Demons, which takes as its theme the resolution of the conflict between God and Science, I was an atheist. When the hero's sexy companion Vittoria Vetra, a scientist working on particle physics at CERN claims there is no conflict between the two, I laughed. I laughed at the transparent desperate grasping of straws by religious types to justify their world-view in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

When I read the book again five years later as a man of faith, I remembered my previous scepticism as an atheist. For this time round, I wholly accepted the notion that science was only an attempt to understand the 'mind of God'. For no matter how far science explains the How, it virtually never touches on the Why, the Wherefore or the Where From.

Indeed, when science is developed and used to understand God's Creation and the nature of God Himself, it aids our spiritual understanding and helps us to make enormous leaps on the journey, as I can personally testify from my own experience.

For example, the concept that the same electron can co-exist in two different parts of the Universe simultaneously mirrors (and resolves) the apparently conflicting concepts of God within and God without.

The fact that electrons behave in a more orderly fashion when they 'know' they are being observed serves as a warning to those humans who misbehave that:

'God is always watching'. 'As above, so below'.

Hawking: his role in the Divine Plan

I mention all this because Professor Stephen Hawking has reportedly told Spanish newspaper, El Mundo, that: ‘There is no God’, after headlining at the Starmus Festival on the Spanish island of Tenerife. In an exclusive interview, Hawking said he was an atheist because: 'Religion believes in miracles but these aren’t compatible with science'.

Ironically, it is only by virtue of a miracle the will of God transcending the usual rules of our physical world that the author of bestseller, A Brief History of Time, is still alive. When Hawking was 21, he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Doctors gave him two years to live in line with the general life expectancy of those who contract this terrible and debilitating disease. So God has -- so far -- spared Hawking from the slow and painful death by asphyxiation as the muscles in the lungs and chest cease to work associated with it.

Professor Hawking really should be very grateful to God, indeed.

1 of 6

I know though why God has kept the ungrateful Hawkins alive for all these years. It was so he could play a part and a vital part at that in the journey of the Messiah to realise his destiny. In late-2004, I was looking into the esoteric, the name given to the study of 'the secret' said to be encoded in ancient documents like the Bible and protected by societies like the Egyptian mystery schools; the Knights Templar; the Rosicrucians; and latterly the Freemasons in the higher 'red' degrees at least, which include titles like:

the 'Royal Arch of Enoch'

the 'Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret' (32nd)

the 'Grand Sovereign Inspector General' (33rd).

In this study, I kept coming across something called 'Qabalah' (sometimes transliterated from the Hebrew as 'Kabbalah' or 'Cabala'). At the time, I was as usual struggling to make ends meet. I couldn't afford to buy books so was reliant on the selection at Maldon Lending Library.

Obviously, there wasn't much of a section on esoteric knowledge so I kept making a mental note to order a couple of interesting titles I had seen on the subject, the next time I was in the library. Unfortunately I kept forgetting to do so until the right moment came.

A Brief History of Mine

At the time, I had just read A Brief History of Time, which was then spending a record 237 weeks on the bestseller list. Having struggled to comprehend the work, I returned it to Maldon Library. It was on that visit that The Power of Kabbalah leapt out at me from the shelves.

When I read it, I found the same core concepts of Creation in the Qabalah that I had found in Hawkings research:

Quantum Physics


The physical universe begins with the explosion of a single atom, from which all energy comes

There are ten possibly eleven dimensions

The universe is one to five per cent observable. The rest is ‘dark matter’.

Creation begins with the flash of Zion, leading to God in Everything

There are ten spheres attached to the Tree of Life and a disc, Darth, which sits below it

Our realm is one per cent light, 99 per cent darkness

At the time, this was the most exciting hot new intelligence I had ever heard. For although I had been an atheist for around 40 years my 'forty days in the wilderness' I had always been looking for evidence of some kind of higher power because I was so scared of death. The trouble was, I found the accounts given by most religious types to be unconvincing and often self-righteous and condescending. When I asked them where Heaven was, they had no explanation.

Now, quantum mechanics had answered my question: Heaven was clearly in the other dimensions which both quantum physics and Qabalah agree were collapsed shortly after the Big Bang/the Flash of Zion. (On closer study of the

2 of 6

Tree, I realised that the sphere transliterated as 'Hod' could be transliterated as 'Heav-ed'. Some years later, when voyaging on Iboga, I went there and saw the souls!).

I cannot describe the euphoric joy I felt on finally being able to have proved to me there was existence beyond the four dimensions we perceive with our senses. In Qabalistic terms, I had 'pierced the first veil'.

I have since read quantum theories which state that space-time is a condition of

the Universe (rather than the Universe being a condition of space-time). To me, that is the closest science will ever come to proclaiming: 'There is a God'. I have also read theories which aim to deal with the central question raised by the

existence of the original atom from which all energy comes, which is: 'Where does that atom come from?'

Before Creation: God without Form

Of course, the Antients had an answer to this. It comes from a god without form. Since it lives 'outside' physical Creation, then it exists outside time in 'no- thing(ness)'. Because this god exists outside time, it has always been there and always will be. In recent years, physicists have begun to grapple with this concept of 'the void' known to the Greeks as 'Chaos' identifying different types of nothing, like the vacuum or the black hole.

My immediate response to this new-found hope was to wonder how the Qabalists had known this for many thousands of years, when modern physicists had only just come across these concepts. As a result, I went on the journey: I made the decision to believe there was some kind of benevolent force guiding and shaping us all.

Since then, I have never looked back.

I have always believed in love and God, although over the years, I have obviously

come to understand better the nature of the One True God, Jesus, and His and my place in Creation. Indeed, no true man of reason would ever say: 'There is no

God' as Hawking has apparently done the mistake I made for many years as a ahem 'sworn atheist'.

Of course, only the universal supreme arbiter of absolute truth would be in a position to say: 'There is no God' as opposed to the more rationally correct: 'I don't believe in God' or 'There is no evidence for the existence of God, I believe'. Since the absolute arbiter of truth would be the Supreme Being (aka God Almighty) then he is unlikely to say: 'There is no God'!

Indeed, it is the very height of egotistical self-evaluation to claim that you can make such a statement, wrongly confusing observable fact and speculative opinion.

On the other hand, the genuinely spiritual being is all to aware that he sees little of the totality of Creation and is therefore unlikely to develop the kind of rigid ideological mindset that bedevils so many scientific extremists like Richard Dawkin and now, Stephen Hawking.

In his defence, Hawking does not actually say: 'There is no God', although that is the gist of his words. According to El Mundo, he said: ‘Before we understood science, it was a natural belief that God created the Universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation', before adding that he was therefore 'an atheist'.

As pointed out above, science has yet to convincingly explain where the original atom came from, which exploded in the Big Bang.

3 of 6

But then again, although popular and a household name to boot Hawking is not rated as one of the finest minds of the world of quantum mechanics. When his fellow physicists came to rate the great minds in their field of the twentieth century, Hawking did not even come in the top twenty.

The ‘No Evidence’ Fallacy and ‘Intelligent Design’

In fact, Professor Stephen is 'hawking' the argument that I used to make 'There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore he doesn't exist'. But as any wise man knows, this is a rational fallacy

There is no evidence of the existence of my great-great-great-great-great-great- great grandfather but he must have existed because I exist now and human beings are only created through the normal methods of intercourse, fertilisation and birth (unless you wish to postulate that my great-great-great-great-great- great grandfather (his son) was born by immaculate conception!).

So is there evidence for the existence of God and His role in Creation contrary to what Hawking claims?

Although you can never prove His existence, scientists have found evidence of 'intelligent design' or the 'invisible hand', as it was known before the 'Enlightenment' in Creation. Although an atheist, the former Astronomer Royal, Fred Hoyle whose school Hawking wished to join at Cambridge University for his PhD -- famously remarked that without panspermia:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

Fred Hoyle, Hoyle on evolution, Nature, Vol. 294, No. 5837 (November 12, 1981), p. 105

Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 40,000 , an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

To avoid using any phrase which might indicate the existence of God, scientists also call this concept 'the fine-tuned Universe'. It states that the conditions that allow the elements, matter and life to exist in the Universe can only happen with certain universal fundamental physical constants which themselves lie within an extremely narrow range.

In his book, Just Six Numbers, current Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, argues that six numbers constitute a recipe for the Creation of the Universe. If any one of the numbers were different 'even to the tiniest degree, there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.'

These parameters are so precise that they support the existence of an intelligent guiding hand, shepherding Creation as opposed to a load of random events which led to the Creation of elements, then galaxies, then stars, then planets, then somehow the evolution of life and above all us, self-consciously intelligent beings.

4 of 6

One of the 'six numbers' is 0.07ε (Epsilon), the strength of the force binding subatomic particles into the nucleus. But:

If it were 0.01 less, then only hydrogen could exist, meaning there would be no other elements to form galaxies, stars and planets.

If it were 0.01 higher, hydrogen wouldn't exist shortly after the Big Bang. Again, if there is no hydrogen, there can be no other physical elements, including carbon, of which we are made.

When we combine all the odds together of these narrow parameters coming together, the fact we are here at all seems nothing short of a miracle! Or rather some guiding force must be making each stage of Creation fall within these narrow constraints so the next stage can happen.

The Multiverse and misplaced faith

Militant atheist scientists have of course come up with an answer to this: the 'multi-verse'. Under this concept, we live in just one world of physical 'laws'. Other parts of the 'multi-verse' will exist under their own set of equally narrow but different parameters perhaps creating non-carbon-based life forms.

Of course, there is not one scrap of evidence for this 'multi-verse'. As such, it requires a leap of faith as great if not greater than a belief in the One True God himself.

That has not stopped the man who once starred in Star Trek and The Simpsons setting himself up as the prophet of this new popular science concept. Since 2010, Hawking has used his public profile to attack religion and philosophy and endorse the 'multi-verse'. In 2011, in an interview entitled: 'There is no Heaven', he responded to the Guardian's questions about this odd position with the following words:

The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those Societies most likely to survive. We assign them a higher value.

Without wishing to sound cruel and heartless, one wonders whether the machine which acts as his voice was on the blink that day. We might also wonder the same about his recent proclamation to the Daily Mail that researchers enquiring into the Higgs Boson or 'God particle' might stress it out, thus destroying the Universe.

Certainly, other physicists have taken him to task for his 'revelation' regarding the multiverse because it is not based on sound scientific evidence or analysis. Twenty years ago, relevantly qualified climate scientists were challenging the myth of 'man-made global warming' but that didn't stop it taking off (although it has now been quietly replaced with 'climate change' as the former cannot be justified by the science).

Once you understand the nature of the god without form, from which Creation comes endless and infinite, timeless and eternal -- you will realise there is no room for a 'multi-verse' because all '-verses' will go back to the One, the Source, precisely because it is infinite and eternal.

Strangely, the concept of the 'multi-verse' has only been pushed since the wider spiritual awakening of human beings began about ten to fifteen years ago and the re-discovery of the always-existing (Common or Natural or God's) Law as the way

5 of 6

to liberate ourselves from the oppression of the banksters; their draconian legislation; and psychopathic foreign policy.

God’s Atheistic Covenant

The Law's commandment to 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself' means you can only be held to account for causing harm, loss or injury to your fellow man rather than for simply not following the rules, as happened to me at my trial in 2002.

Note well all you atheists that this is an atheistic covenant with man as it does not mention God.

So when it comes to man's legislation versus the Law, to my mind there is no contest. For example, man-made rules and regulations continue to prohibit marijuana, the 'Lord's plant' as it is referred to in the Tanakh, or the Old Testament even though there is now overwhelming evidence to indicate that it cures cancer; provides perfect nutrition for a human being; and is a carbon- neutral, calorific fuel that could power our cars, homes and industry.

That is why, I believe, we are seeing increasingly vehement and absurd attacks on God and His existence. The dark elite want to abolish the Law by abolishing God. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Man.

In fact, the universal equation that quantum physicists are striving to establish has already been promoted for at least two millennia by the Bible. It is 'Love=Law', which unlike Isaac Newton's 'laws' has no exceptions and is therefore by reason, Law. The exceptions to Newton's 'laws' of, for example, motion at the very large and very small levels in quantum mechanics proves they are rules.

As I've already stated in this article, I've voyaged to 'Heaven' so I know it exists. I also voyaged to 'parallel universes' as they are sometimes called, although a better phrase would be 'parallel alternative outcomes'. I accessed them through the sphere of Netzach on the Tree of Life, which could be transliterated as 'Nexc', indicating '(What's) Next'.

I also communicate with Jesus, the One True God but not the only god -- on a daily basis so I know He exists. To those who think this is simply my own consciousness, I say: 'How does He/It teach me things I do not know?'

Of course, as any philosopher will tell you, you can't prove a negative. To prove that 'God' doesn't exist, you would have to prove that something else created the atom that exploded in the Big Bang. But couldn't we then argue that anything which can create something out of nothing must be 'God' anyway?

If you could prove the existence of God, then it would no longer be a matter of faith. And as any true believer knows, faith can move mountains in a way that intellectualism simply cannot. It is therefore a shame that Professor Hawking has revealed himself to be a 'learned' rather than a 'wise' man.

So Stephen, just because Jesus chooses not to talk to you doesn't mean He doesn't exist. It is more likely to mean that He no longer considers you worthy of protection. But that can change with a simple decision on your part to want to believe in God because ironically 'Believing is seeing', not the other way round as the 'great god science', has it.

But isn't it better to spend a life standing up for truth, justice and law even if there is no God and therefore no prospect of redemption which is ironically what God demands of you than it is to conform to and support a tyrannical, hypocritical society which thinks nothing of the consequences of manufactured war, false-flag terrorism and torture and uses a perverted from of science to justify its macabre ends.

6 of 6