Scientific Arguments for God's Existence 1.c

The argument of too early galactic clusters

1. A second area in astrophysics that can be construed as a cloud on the horizon is that recent observations in the years 2002-2003 tell astronomers that when the universe was less than 3 billion years old, there were already galactic clusters. Not only were there galaxies but astronomers have discovered, a modest galactic cluster (it has something like 30 some-odd galaxies in it) that goes back to less than 3 billion years after the big bang. That’s much too much structure to have after only two and a half or 2.7 billion years of expansion. So that is another problem that astrophysics needs to solve. It’s not a small problem, either, because the extent of the structure that we can discover in the universe has implications for whether big bang and inflation are really capable of providing a model of the universe. (Dr. Steven L. Goldman of Lehigh University, 03/12/2003. )

2. Spitzer Clusters: JPL issued a press release stating that the Spitzer Space Telescope, on a “cosmic safari,” found evidence for clusters of galaxies 9 billion years old. In the standard dating scheme, this was when the universe was a “mere” 4.5 billion years old.[1]

3. Swift GRBs: Astronomers reported in Nature2 the discovery, by the Swift satellite, of the earliest gamma-ray burst ever found. The burst “happened 12.8 billion years ago, corresponding to a time when the Universe was just 890 million years old, close to the reionization era,” they said. “This means that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes”.

4. Ubiquitous Galaxies: A press release from the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics announced “Ubiquitous galaxies discovered in the Early Universe.” Observations in far-ultraviolet and near-infrared found galaxies at redshift z=6.7, assumed to be within 5% of the birth of the universe. Most of them were spirals, not irregulars as theory had predicted.

5. Too early formation of galactic clusters indicate rather the work of an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling, willing and planning than just a mere spontaneous creation by chance or accident. That person all men call God.

6. God exists.

References:

1. Dr. Peter Eisenhardt et al of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

2. Cusumano et al., “Gamma-ray bursts: Huge explosion in the early

Universe,” Nature 440, 164 (9 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/440164a.

The argument of rogue planets

1. Stories about rogue planets colliding into Earth planet causing a doomsday are not confirmed to exist by astronomy. Powerful telescopes did not find any great planet the size of Mars or greater within 11.27 billion km of Earth and any planet the size of Jupiter or greater within 160.9 billion km.[1]

2. Some astronomers, taking into the account the fossil records, have speculated that a very distant planet could have been the cause of the mass extinction events of the species that regularly occurred in the intervals throughout a 27-million-year period.[2]

3. Astronomer Kevin Luhman analyzed the database from the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer satellite to search for possible thermal emission signals from gas giant planets and brown dwarfs that may be lurking in the outer limits of the solar system.[3] (Brown dwarfs are bodies ranging in size from 12–75 Jupiter masses.)

4. Luhman determined that no planet the size of Saturn or greater exists within 4.184 trillion kilometers (0.44 light-years) of the Sun and no planet the size of Jupiter or greater exists within 12.23 trillion km (1.30

light-years).

4 Such a stringent limit on distant solar system bodies effectively rules out the possibility that a distant planet could be responsible for the mass extinction events noted in the fossil record.

5. This suggests that, over the past several million years, advanced animals on Earth have been relatively undisturbed by events in the extreme outer realms of the solar system.

6. Our solar system’s lack of planets with high-eccentricity orbits, lack of wide orbit planets, and lack of any large body within a light-year of the Sun all suggests an intentional design, in order to make possible the existence of enduring life on Earth.

7. The great cosmic intelligence that designed our solar system belongs to a person who is in control of our universe. This is a description of God.

8. God exists.

References:

1. Lorenzo Iorio, “Constraints on Planet X/Nemesis from Solar System’s

Inner Dynamics,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

400 (November 2009): 346–53.

2. Daniel P. Whitmire and Albert A. Jackson IV, “Are Periodic Mass

Extinctions Driven by a Distant Solar Companion?” Nature 308 (April

19,  1984):  713–15;  Marc  Davis,  Piet  Hut,  and  Richard A.  Muller, “Extinction of Species by Periodic Comet Showers,” Nature 308 (April

19, 1984): 715–17.

3. K. L. Luhman, “A Search for a Distant Companion to the Sun with the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer,” Astrophysical Journal 781 (January 20, 2014): id. 4.

The argument of the fine-tuning of the

Universe Constants of the Universe and

1. Parameter                                                 Ratio

Ratio of Electrons: Protons                          1:1037

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity     1:1040

Expansion Rate of Universe                         1:1055

Mass Density of Universe1                          1:1059

Cosmological Constant                                1:10120

2. These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

3. One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in

10^37. (Dr. Hugh Ross)

4. “If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for every one that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity.” Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 269

5. The 90 (registered) constants prove an intelligent designer. Without such finely tuned constants the universe would not exist.

6. This Supreme Designer of these constants and of the universe must be

God, the most intelligent person.

7. God exists.

The argument of mathematical precision

1.  Einstein  once  wondered:  “How  is  it  possible  that  mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?” And similarly his book ‘The Mysterious Universe,’ the English physicist Sir James Jeans describes the flawless order in the cosmos: “A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that

the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.” Laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in Nature. For example, a. Pauli’s exclusion principle describes identity of electrons.

b. Noether’s theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries.

c. Lorentz transformations correspond to rotational symmetry of space- time.

2. Every planet in the universe, large and small, is the critically important part of a larger order. Not one of their positions in space or any of their movements is random eg to keep everything circling at particular distances.

3. The distance between the Earth and our moon ensures many important balances and is extremely vital for the continuation of life on Earth, eg the tides flowing, the growth of the flora.

If the moon were much closer [to the Earth], it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space. If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents.

4. There are 93 constants in the fine-tuning of the Universe, Martin Rees discusses six dimensionless constants.[1]

5. N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is 1,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to Rees, if it were smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[1]

5b. Epsilon, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is

0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[1]

5c. Omega, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[1]

5d. Lambda is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy

density is a constant. Lambda is around 0.7. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If it were extremely large, stars would not be able to form. [1]

5e. Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 1/100,000. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees. [1]

5f. D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is three. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were two or four. [1]

6. a. Thus, scientific discoveries of innumerable patterns and many inter- related complexities of the universe cannot be explained as an appearance after mere accidents just as your computer hasn’t appeared by accident. Mathematical and rational symmetries are wonderful designs indicate a designer.

That wonderful designer that designed symmetries in the whole universe can be only God.

6. b. The universe can’t have come into existence without an all-powerful, super-knowledgeable great person the dictionary meaning of the term God.

7. God exists.

Reference: 1. Lemley Brad. “Why is There Life?” Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.

Argument from the formation of the sun in a cluster

1. Scientists determined that the Sun formed in a cluster of stars containing at least one massive star that died in a supernova explosion.

2. The distance to that supernova must have been close enough to enrich the solar nebula adequately, but not so close that it would have destroyed the disk from which the planets formed.

3. Such fine-tuning indicates design of the solar system that could have been done only by The Supreme Engineer, God.

4. God necessarily exists.

The Argument of the Evidence for the fine-tuning of

the solar system for the development of a life-supporting Earth (from Hugh Ross)

1. Galaxy type

If too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry.

If too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.

If too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.

If too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation. Supernovae eruptions

If too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation.

If too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.

If too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets.

If too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

If too soon: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets.

If too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation. White dwarf binaries

If too few: insufficient fluorine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed.

If too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated.

If too soon: not enough heavy elements would he made for efficient fluorine production.

If too late: fluorine would be made too late for incorporation in proto- planet.

Parent star distance from center of galaxy

If farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets.

If closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits.

Number of stars in the planetary system

If more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits. If less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life.

Parent star birth date

If more recent: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase;

stellar system would contain too many heavy elements.

If less recent: stellar system would not contain enough heavy elements. Parent star age

If older: luminosity of star would change too quickly.

If younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly. Parent star mass

If greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly.

If less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; UV radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.

Parent star color

If redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient. If bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient. Parent star luminosity relative to speciation

If increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop. If increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop.

Surface gravity (escape velocity) of the planet

If stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.

If weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water. Distance from parent star

If farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle. If closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle. Inclination of orbit

If too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme. Orbital eccentricity

If too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

Axial tilt

If greater: surface temperature differences would be too great. If less: surface temperature differences would be too great.

Rotation period

If longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great. If shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great. Rate of change in rotation period

If longer: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.

If shorter: surface temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.

Age of the planet

If too young: planet would rotate too rapidly. If too old: planet would rotate too slowly. Magnetic field

If stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe.

If weaker: ozone shield would be inadequately protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.

Thickness of crust

If thicker: too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.

If thinner: volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) If greater: runaway glaciation would develop.

If less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop. Asteroidal and cometary collision rate

If greater: too many species would become extinct.

If less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

If larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly. If smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere

If greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

If less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis. Water vapor level in atmosphere

If greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

If less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land. Atmospheric electric discharge rate

If greater: too much fire destruction would occur.

If less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere. Ozone level in atmosphere

If greater: surface temperatures would be too low.

If less: surface temperatures would be too high; too much UV radiation would be at the surface.

Oxygen quantity in atmosphere

If greater: plants and hydrocarbons would bum up too easily. If less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe. Seismic activity

If greater: too many life-forms would be destroyed.

If less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics.

Oceans-to-continents ratio

If greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited. If smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited. Global distribution of continents (for Earth)

If too much in the southern hemisphere: seasonal differences too severe for advanced life.

Soil mineralization

If too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

If too nutrient rich: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited.

Gravitational interaction with a moon

If greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.

If less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak.

Jupiter distance

If greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth. If less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.

Jupiter mass

If greater: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.

If less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.

2. Despite these “fine-tunings”, which are evidence for a fine-tuner, is it

still possible that the universe occurred by chance?

It is estimated that the probability that all of the necessary parameters would occur by coincidence, allowing the universe to appear by accident, is one chance in 10^10e30. (Roger Penrose in Heeren, Show Me God) This chance theory still needs a first mover who (randomly) pushes the processes and the atoms. Thus God exists.

Thus, chance is also dependant on God. But then, Einstein said: “God does not gamble” He could as well with one good throw of the dices (or subatomic particles) do it all. Thus save a lot of time, and in that time make love with His Goddess.

3. God the ultimate intelligent fine-tuner exists.

The argument of the anthropic principle

1. Here are a number of scientific parameters or constants, any one of which, if changed just a little bit would make the universe uninhabitable by human beings. (Henry Schaefer)

Average distance between stars (1 part in 101)

If larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form. If smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized.

Decay rate of 8Be (4 parts in 102)

If slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars.

If faster: no element production beyond beryllium, hence no life chemistry possible.

Strong nuclear force constant (2 parts in 102)

If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable. If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen.

Entropy level of the universe (1 part in 108)

If larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies. If smaller: no proto-galaxy formation.

Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons (1 part in 1010) If greater: too much radiation for planets to form.

If smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form.

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio (1 part in 1015) If larger: insufficient oxygen.

If smaller: insufficient carbon.

Decay rate of the proton (1 part in 1032)

If greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation. If smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life. Gravitational force constant (1 part in 1040)

If larger: stars too hot; they would burn up quickly and unevenly.

If smaller: stars too cool; nuclear fusion would not ignite; no heavy element production.

Expansion rate of the universe (1 part in 1055) If larger: no galaxy formation.

If smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation. Weak nuclear force constant

If larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars.

If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars.

Electromagnetic force constant

If larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fusion.

If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding.

Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

If larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning.

If smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses. hence no heavy element production.

Ratio of electron to proton mass

If larger: insufficient chemical bonding.

If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding.

Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

If larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star and planet formation.

If smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation.

Mass density of the universe

If larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly. If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming.

Velocity of light

If larger: stars would be too luminous.

If smaller: stars would not be luminous enough. Age of the universe

If older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy.

If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed.

Initial uniformity of radiation

If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed.

If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

If larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses. If smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses. Average distance between galaxies

If larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span.

If smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed. Galaxy cluster type

If too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit.

If too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time.

Ground state energy level for 4He

If larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen.

If smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen. Mass excess of the neutron over the proton

If greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life.

If smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes.

Polarity of the water molecule

If greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to

exist.

If smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up.

Supernovae eruptions

If too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet.

If too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

If too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

If too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated.

If too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.

If too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation. White dwarf binaries

If too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed.

If too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated.

If too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production.

If too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet. Ratio of the mass of exotic matter (dark matter) to ordinary matter. If smaller: galaxies would not form.

If larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars can form.

2. All these fine-tunings prove the greatest Fine-Tuner, God.

3. God exists.

The argument of Hawking that universe created itself

1. Stephen Hawking, leading cosmologist and recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, has co-authored a book, The Grand Design. In it, he claims that the universe did not need God to create it.

2. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”[1]

3. a. This is science, saying :” Things happen”? Science means studying the causes and purposes to come to perfect knowledge and perfect existence or well-being, living in harmony with the laws of the Complete whole.

b. Perhaps Hawking thinks that gravity has an equal amount of “negative”

energy to perfectly balance all other “positive” energies.[2]

4. But even if “gravity” did provide such balance, it could hardly suffice as an adequate cause for the whole universe; can gravity only have been the cause of the subatomic particles moving into the structures of the cosmos?

5. Moreover, pointing out qualities of already-existing energies is not an explanation for their origin and ability to operate as such, and the perfecting of life.

6. Hawking may have relied on the common cosmological concept that gravity supposedly can pull matter together from fine dust into nuggets, clumps, large conglomerates, nebulae, planetesimals, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and super-clusters. Physics, however, shows that gravity alone cannot do this.

7. The universe is characterized by vast extraordinary information. The three-dimensional placements of heavenly bodies in space, the life- enabling parameters such as the speed of light and electromagnetic strength are some examples of fine-tuned information.

8. Gravity and energy do not address the question of information and so these two alone form insufficient grounds to reject a supernatural origin for the universe.

9. A basic argument for the existence of God is that since something exists (e.g. the universe), and since something cannot make itself, then there must be a transcendental, first cause, a cause outside that thing, namely God.

10a. Hawking says the universe was just the result of “spontaneous creation,” but such reasoning makes no sense. Spontaneous creation means magic and this need a magician. This is our practical experience. Juggling of the subatomic balls and macroscopic planet balls of the universe is performed by a Juggler. Therefore, Sir Isaac Newton formed a reasonable and accurate assessment of the universe’s origins: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from

the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

10b. To answer Hawking’s question as to what is the cause of God; He is eternal, just as Hawking’s laws are eternal principles.

11. God exists.

References

1. Roberts, L. Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe. Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk September 2, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010.

2. Gribbin, J. Are we living in a designer universe? Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2010, accessed September 2, 2010. Footnotes:

1. Homework for Sir Hawking: Here is a big box of Lego. Take it home and build a universe. Dismantle it. Put all the pieces in a big bag, shake it and throw the content out on the floor. Don’t worry about the laws of the universe; they will also be in the big bag, since they are all-pervading. Repeat this process as often as you like. You’ll never get your universe back. Rewrite your book.

2. In Hawking’s hometown, do the “laws” of the town organize it or is it the town bureaucracy or “town people”?

The proof from Sir Isaac Newton’s planetarium

1. Sir Isaac Newton had made in his house a small replica of the universe with all the planets floating with levers and on threads. His atheist assistant came one day and he said, “Oh, who has made this wonderful replica of the universe?” Sir Isaac Newton, who was sitting there reading said, “Oh, no one.” The assistant said, “What do you mean no one?” Sir Isaac Newton didn’t look up. He just said, “No one made it.” And he kept reading and the assistant, the atheist became very perturbed. He kept saying, “What do you mean? Obviously somebody made it. He must have great intelligence, and I’d like to know the genius who created this.” Sir Isaac Newton put down his book and said, “My friend, this is but a small imperfect replica of the universe, and you’re the one who is always declaring that no one has created the universe. And now you’re declaring to me that somebody must have created that. I’m saying it just happened, but you don’t believe me. So how can I accept your logic when you say that this entire universe just happened?”

2. God, the creator of the universe exists.

The proof that non-earthly scientists created the 

universe and the species billions of years ago

1. Scientists cannot proof their Big Bang theory by making a miniature model of the universe and the life in it by impersonal forces. These have a personal background. They can make a simulation in matter or in a computer simulation, in a film, or in a museum exhibition but with this they prove that in the creation of the universe and the evolution of the species billions of years ago there were also scientists at work.

2. The human scientists make the computer simulation, film or museum exhibition in their office, work room or garage hobby room but their home or pleasure resort is elsewhere. Similarly, the non-earthly scientists create the universe and the species but have their homes in heaven.

3. As teams of scientists have a leader or director so God is the Godhead of the non-earthly or divine scientists.

4. God and heaven exists.

Big Bang arguments

The proof of the failure of the Big Bang theory

1. There are many problems with the Big Bang theory as explanation for the moons, stars, and planets.

2. That such a large structure could form so quickly after the Big Bang calls into question some of the traditional theories of how the universe evolved, Williger said, since it is difficult to explain how gravity could pull together such an immense cluster in a relatively short time . . . . “A successful theory has to explain the extremes,” said Williger. (Discovery News Online, Gerard Williger of NOAO, 01/09/2001)

3. Using the Hubble Space Telescope astronomers detected a new galaxy bright with stars almost as old as the big bang. In the Science Daily magazine this galaxy, with redshift 7.6, was called the “strong contender

for the galaxy distance record.”

According to theory, stars did not form till the end of the “dark ages” about 400,000 years after the big bang. Young galaxies emerging from the fog of particles might have had enough energy to evaporate the fog and bring the first stars to light, the article says. Still, to see a galaxy so soon after the dark ages was unexpected. An astronomer from UC Santa Cruz said, “We certainly were surprised to find such a bright young galaxy 13 billion years in the past.” The current age estimate for the whole universe is 13.7 billion years. (Feb. 13, 2008 — The NASA/ESA)

4. In the June 2001 issue of Astronomy Magazine, astrophysicist Mark

Sincell lists “The Eight Greatest Mysteries of Cosmology:”

a. How multidimensional is the universe? (We don’t understand gravity.) b. How did the universe begin? (How did an explosion produce such smoothness?)

c. Why does matter fill the universe? (There should be an equal part of antimatter[1].)

d.  How  did  galaxies  form?  (“The  details  are  devilishly  difficult to understand.”)

e. What is cold dark matter3? (What is the other 95% of stuff that must be out there?)

f. Are all the baryons[2] assembled in galaxies? (Astronomers have only found a tiny fraction of what they expect.)

g. What is the dark energy? “Physicists have tried to calculate the observed dark-energy density from accepted theories of physics, but their results don’t jibe with reality. So far, the computed value is roughly 10^60 times greater than the observed value. (Others say the number could be off by a factor of up to 10^130, but let’s not quibble over the details.)”

h. What is the destiny of the universe?

Some answers are known but mostly cosmologists really don’t know very much at all.

a. For instance, inflation is still the rage, but the author says: “What drove inflation? Nobody knows. Physicists have suggested different models to describe the inflating universe, but all the solutions are mathematical conveniences with no particular physical basis.”

b. Regarding dark energy, “The biggest problem with this idea is that no one has any idea what dark energy is. ‘So far, all we’ve been able to do

is name it,’ says [Michael] Turner. ‘It could be the energy associated with nothing [sic!], or the influence of hidden spatial dimensions.’”

5. The only sound and logical theory of cosmic creation, a cosmos that works perfectly like a huge Swiss watch, is intelligent design. When there is intelligent design there must have been an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling and willing. That person all men call God. He did it by emanating the atoms, somewhat similar to a Big Bang or Outflow, and controlling these atoms into their specific places in the cosmos.

6. Just as an engineer is rather at home or on holiday then in his office, similarly God transcendent is at home in heaven and God immanent is on duty creating or evolving the cosmic prison house or the material world for us, spirit souls.

7. God exists.

NOTE:

1. Antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge.

2. A baryon is a composite subatomic particle made up of three quarks

(as distinct from mesons, which comprise one quark and one antiquark).

3. Cold dark matter (or CDM) is a hypothetical form of matter that interacts very weakly with electromagnetic radiation (dark) and most of whose particles move slowly compared to the speed of light (cold). It is believed that approximately 80% of matter in the Universe is dark matter, with only a small fraction being the ordinary “baryonic” matter that composes stars and planets.

The argument of the problems of the Big Bang theory

1 a. In the beginning there was nothing. Then out of nothing appeared matter. “Nothing” in the Big Bang theory does not refer to an absolute nothingness. As seen in the Casimir effect, the so-called empty space is filled to the brim with energy. ”Nothing” means nothing to activate it. Or, “Nothing” means nothing of our material experience.

1b. Problem - The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy says, matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted from one state to another.

But there was no known converter. God has nothing material in Him.

1c. This law is in agreement with the description of the Vedas on the creation of the universe, namely the transformation of more subtle material elements (unknown to gross material instruments, and also ultimately moved by God) to gross elements.

1d. Thus, no transformation of matter can take place without an non- gross-material cause.

2a. Nothing decided to pack itself into a tiny dense dot.

2b. Problem - What was the mechanism that packed nothing into a dense dot? Gravity only works on matter. And gravity came later, after the Bang, into existence. Also, when we talk about nothingness, we can’t talk about density, for total volume is opposite of total density.

2c. Solution - let’s guess that gravity formed in that first split of a second perfectly, to pull it all together.

2d. Problem - the unanswered question then is: “what caused the gravity? Gravity is an energy or function and its existence implies the existence of its source or controller, the energetic. That energetic also has to be conscious of the purpose for what to use the energy of gravity.

2e. Solution – let’s assume it was a random quantum fluctuation that caused gravity.

3a. Problem – The Big Bang is a prediction from the general theory of relativity but it does not take quantum mechanics into consideration. Modern physics has no quantum gravity theory, which is needed to describe the tiny dense dot.

3b. Solution – let’s assume physicists will solve the quantum gravity theory sometime in the future.

4a. The tiny dot exploded.

4b. Problem - there could only be two types of explosions, chemical and nuclear. This explosion could not have been chemical, since there were no chemicals yet. It couldn’t have been nuclear either, since there were no atoms yet.

4c. Solution - let’s assume the dot was able to explode.

5a. Matter expanded rapidly.

5b. Problem - what mechanism would expand it? If gravity formed perfectly in step 2 to condense vacuum, that same gravity would prevent the dot from expanding.

5c. Solution - let’s assume there was some sort of a mechanism to send that matter flying outward.

6a. Intense heat caused by the explosion produced protons, neutrons, and electrons.

6b. Problem - there could be no heat without an energy source.

6c. Solution - let’s assume there was some mysterious source of heat.

7a. The explosion followed extremely precise mathematical formulas.

7b. Problem - Explosions follow no formulas, they can only follow chaos. For example, if the universe expanded only 0.1% faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3000 times greater, and not made our solar system. Had the universe expanded only 0.1% slower, the universe would have only expanded to 3,000,000th of its present radius, and then collapsed.

c. Solution - let’s assume somehow it happened rightly.

8. Gas clouds begin to condense to form stars.

9a. The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium, other elements were produced from those two.

9b. Problem - there’s a “gap at mass 5 and mass 8 problem”. There are no stable atoms of mass 5 or mass 8. Neither proton, nor neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Hydrogen bomb explosions can only produce hydrogen 2, which in turn forms helium 4. Because of that gap at mass 5, the chain reaction cannot continue. The same gap is repeated at mass 8.

9c. Solution - let’s assume the other elements did get produced.

10a. First generation stars, composed of hydrogen and helium, explode to produce stars with heavier elements.

10b. Problem - no first generation stars have been found. Plus, even over

15 billion years, there would be not enough time to produce all the stars we have today. Supernova explosions that should have produced new heavier stars occur only once or twice in a century. There are trillions of stars in the universe, which are second and third generation stars (exploded one or two times). They would need trillions of centuries to form. Couldn’t they have exploded at a faster rate before? Not according to what we observe. Stars at the outer edges of the universe are, theoretically, snapshots of the beginning of time, and yet, we don’t see more explosions when looking at the outer edges of the universe.

10c. Solution - let’s assume heavier stars did form somehow.

11a. Intricate structures of solar systems, galaxies, clusters, and super- clusters, are formed.

11b. Problem - How could all the forces in the universe get fine-tuned by themselves to create a universe that works like clock-work?

11c. Solution - let’s imagine this still happened.

12. The Big Bang theory is not a bona-fide scientific theory. The universe is intelligently designed.

14.  God,  the  Big  Mind  and  Intelligence  behind  the  creation  of  the universe, is the only plausible explanation.

15. God exists.

The arguments of Big Bang theory

A:

1. By the early 1980s these problems threatened the foundations of modern cosmology.

2a. The horizon problem stated that it was highly improbable to get a uniform universe during an expansion when different sectors had no way to be in thermal equilibrium.

2b. The inflation theory rescued the big bang: it smoothed out those temperature differences by expanding them to astronomical scales.

3a. The flatness problem stated that it was highly improbable to get a universe finely balanced (flat) between the extremes of positive and negative curvature.

3b. The inflation theory diluted any initial curvature by spreading it out to hyper-astronomical dimensions, so that our local region (the “observable universe”) appears flat, like a bacterium on a large beach ball might think it is living on a flat surface.

4a. The lumpiness problem stated that it is highly improbable to expect an explosion of a sea of particles to condense into stars and galaxies.

4b.  However,  the  inflation  theory  generated  matter  out  of  vacuum energy that leftover temperature fluctuations in the “comic microwave background” were able to condense into lumps – the seeds of the first galaxies.

5. To accept the inflation theory to these problems one has to believe that something can come from nothing, and that the something would

undergo a one-time, somehow expansion from the size a tennis ball to the size of the whole universe, 26 orders of magnitude, in about a trillion trillionth of a second.

6. God created the universe. That uncreated mover all men call God.

7. God exists. B:

1. The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. The text of the letter is as follows:

2. “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

3. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

4. Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

5. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters,

just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

5a. God Immanent did all the magic; adjusting, energizing and engineering while emanating all the multiverses out of His pores.

5b. God Transcendent is in heaven, regularly creating the material world, to function as a prison house for those who, like Adam and Eve, were and will become disobedient to God.

6. God exists, heaven exists.

The argument of the Flatness Problem

1. The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat.

2. If the universe were the accidental by-product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big- bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn’t greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).

3. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the big bang), despite the fact that the laws of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point.

4. Balance however testifies for one who created a balance to fine-tune the universe for life. Such a great task could have been done only by God.

5. God exists.

The argument of the “lumpiness problem”

1. Astronomers have found a mind-bogglingly large structure — so big it takes light 10 billion years to traverse — in a distant part of the universe. The discovery poses a conundrum to a fundamental tenet of modern cosmology, which posits that matter should appear to be distributed uniformly if viewed at a large enough scale.[1]

NOTE: After accounting for potential survey biases -- such as NASA’s Swift telescope and other gamma ray trackers looking more often in one part of the sky or another -- scientists found a region roughly 10 billion light-years away in the direction of the constellations Hercules and Corona Borealis that had a disproportionate number of gamma ray bursts.

2. The newly found structure is more than double the size of the previous record-holder, a cluster of 73 quasars referred to as the Huge-LQG, or Large Quasar Group, which spans 4 billion light-years. It is six times larger than the 1.4-billion-light year diameter Sloan Great Wall.

NOTE: Light travels at about 671 million miles per hour, or about 6 trillion miles per year.

3. This is the “lumpiness problem” of big bang cosmology: how do you get lumpy objects from a smooth beginning? It was hard enough to explain relatively small lumps, like galaxies, or clusters of galaxies. Now, such an immense structure compounds the lumpiness problem by many orders of magnitude. The new structure is inferred from the distribution of gamma ray bursts.

4. Istvan Horvath of the National University of Public Service in Budapest, Hungary says: “For now I have ‘no idea’ how something that big could have evolved.”

5. Whether  it  evolved  quickly  or  slowly  the  forces  or  energies  for developing something that big must have been designed or created by the greatest brain that has thinking, feeling and willing. This is the description of God’s activity.

6. God exists.

Reference:

1.News:space.com/23754-universe-lar gest-structure-cosmic- conundrum.html

The argument of the “flatness problem”

1. There are a couple of problems with the standard Big Bang model. The first is called the flatness problem---why is the universe density so

nearly at the critical density or put another way, why is the universe so flat? Currently, the universe is so well-balanced between the positively- curved closed universe and the negatively-curved open universe that astronomers have a hard time figuring out which model to choose. Of all the possibilities from very positively-curved (very high density) to very negatively-curved (very low density), the current nearly flat condition is definitely a special case. The balance would need to have been even finer nearer the time of the Big Bang because any deviation from perfect balance gets magnified over time. For example, if the universe density was slightly greater than the critical density a billion years after the Big Bang, the universe would have re-collapsed by now.

2. Consider the analogy of the difficulty of shooting an arrow at a small target from a distance away. If your angle of shooting is a little off, the arrow misses the target. The permitted range of deviation from the true direction gets narrower and narrower as you move farther and farther away from the target. The earlier in time the universe’s curvature became fixed, the more finely tuned the density must have been to make the universe’s current density be so near the critical density. If the curvature of the universe was just a few percent off from perfect flatness within a few seconds after the Big Bang, the universe would have either re-collapsed before fusion ever began or the universe would expanded so much that it would seem to be devoid of matter. It appears that the density/curvature was very finely tuned.

3. Perfect balance and fine tuning always happens under control and control is an ability of a person.

4. Only God could balance and fine tune the creation and maintenance of such a big body like the universe.

5. God exists.

The argument of the inflation theory

1. Alan Guth invented the inflationary big bang to explain away the flatness and horizon problems, which indeed suggest the universe is a “put up job.”

2. In 1981 he claimed that the universe doubled in size a hundred times in a trillionth of a second, going from the size of a marble to “out of sight” in less than the blink of an eye namely at around 1000 times the speed of light in a process called inflation.

3. In fact Andrei Linde speculated Guth understated the inflation speed by a factor of 10^1,000,000.

4. Overbye has reported that, Guth and another MIT professor, Ed Fahri, found that, “If you could compress 25 pounds of matter into 10^-24 centimeters, making a mass 10^75 times the density of water…a bubble of false vacuum, or what Guth called a ‘child universe’ would be formed. From outside it would look like a black hole. From the inside it would look like an inflating universe.” (page 229, Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality by William C. Mitchell)

5. The original theory of the 80s agrees well with observations. However, the theory has been developed over time to take into account quantum effects and this more advanced version of the theory predicts that one is more likely to end up in regions of space which do not look like ours. So rather than explaining flat space and so on, it transpires that the theory predicts pretty much any kind of outcome and so doesn’t explain the appearance of our region of space at all - unless it is argued that we happen to live in a region that inflated by just the right amount to give rise to flat space etc, but then you could argue that without inflation!

6. Now it is well known that highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.

7. Thus, some of the inflation theory’s creators including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.

8. Even these few things are enough to see that the best explanation for the fine tuning and balance in the universe is intelligent design by the greatest designer all men call God.

9. God exists.

The argument of the instant galaxies

1. The z8_GND_5296 farthest and oldest galaxy yet (700 million years after the Big Bang in the material cosmological view, or redshift 7.51) was already fully mature, creating stars hundreds of times faster than

the Milky Way does and is “richer in heavy elements” than expected – requiring multiple generations of stars to have formed, aged, and exploded. This “exceptional” galaxy so near the beginning requires cosmologists to invent special conditions that are not acting or known today.

2. The BBC News echoed the discovery: “there are already quite surprisingly evolved galaxies in the very early Universe.”

3. Fully evolved galaxies in the very early universe exist because of creating powers which can belong only to a person who knows what laws are needed to create and maintain the complex clock like structures of galaxies. Such a great task can be done only by God.

4. God exists.

References:

1. Nature magazine: Light from farthest galaxy yet discovered breaks through cosmic fog, 23 October 2013

2.  http://news.sciencemag.org,  ScienceShot:  The  Universe’s  Farthest

Galaxy … So Far, 23 October 2013

The argument of the early maturity of galaxies

1. A new Hubble survey “found that the assorted range of galaxy types seen today were also present about 11 billion years ago, meaning that the types of galaxies seen today, which astronomers described as a ‘cosmic zoo,’ have been around for at least 80 percent of the universe’s lifespan.” The survey pushes back the early maturity of galaxies from 8 billion years to 11.5 billion.

“This is the only comprehensive study to date of the visual appearance of the large, massive galaxies that existed so far back in time,” co- author Arjen van der Wel of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany said in a statement. “The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the universe.” (September 13, 2013)

2. The sudden appearance of various groups of galaxies already in mature states is like the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record (The Cambrian period began 570 million years ago and the Cambrian Explosion occurred about 540 million years ago over 2-3 million years or less. At

the time of the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every animal phyla (=the major taxonomic group of animals and plants) on Earth (more than 70) suddenly appeared).

3. This discovery falsifies the materialistic scientist’s cosmic evolution theory and proves intelligent design by a great designer who can create the complex structures of galaxies in an instant. This great designer can be only God.

4. God exists.

The argument that the universe is not eternal

(From a discussion between William Lane Craig and cosmologist Sean Carroll on the beginning of the universe and the Kalam Cosmological Argument)

1. Carroll pointed out that the Borde Guth Vilenkin (or BVG) theorem that the universe had a beginning only works within relativity but does not take quantum effects into account. Given a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity, he argued that Craig can not claim that the universe began to exist.

2. This  is  partly  true.  One  thing  known  for  certain  about  quantum gravity is something called the holographic principle. Precisely put, the holographic principle tells us that the entropy of a region of space (measured in terms of information) is directly proportional to a quarter or any amount (1/2 complete) of its surface area or any related measurement (radius, diameter). The volume of this region is then actually a hologram of this information on its surface.

3. Another thing that it tells us is that the entropy, or the amount of disorder present, always increases with time. In fact, not only is this law inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy or disorder, destruction i.o.w change, there is no way to discern forwards and backwards in time.

4. However, if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of space-time eventually vanishes to nothing at zero entropy, at the beginning of the creation. Thus Carroll’s argument is unsound.

5. The universe is not eternal but created.

6. By the way this also undermines claims made by atheists like Hawking and Krauss that the universe could have fluctuated into existence from nothing. Their argument rests on the assumption that there was a pre- existent zero-point field or ZPF. The only trouble is that the physics of a ZPF requires a space-time to exist in. No space-time means no zero-point field, and without a zero-point field, the universe can not spontaneously fluctuate into existence.

7. One other point of Carroll’s was his view that regardless of the physics discovered, the sort of supernatural explanation Craig gave could no longer be considered valid. Carroll, being a physicist, naturally believes that whatever the final answer is it will come in physical terms. After all it is not every day that scientists speak of God or supernatural agents. Instead they expect explanations to come in material terms with equations.

8. But Carroll may be ruling something out too quickly. A holographic universe entails a world made of information. And information requires a mind to know it. Information never just floats, information is of a mind, who knows it.

9. “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is a matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

10. God exists.

The argument of parallels of Vedic wisdom and the ideas of Nassim Haramein

(INTRO: Kilauea, Hawaii (May 7, 2013) - A groundbreaking paper published last week sheds new light on the theory of gravity and the potential to significantly impact global issues facing the human race, including alternative energy sources.)

1. Nassim Haramein, Director of Research at the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics (HIUP), has authored a paper titled “Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass,” which has been validated and published in the peer review journal, Physical Review and Research International. This paper discusses Haramein’s “Connected Universe” theory, which offers a new and alternative understanding of gravity through basic algebraic and geometric equations.

1a. Algebraic and geometric equations perfectly proof intelligent design.

2. Haramein’s work indicates everything in the universe is connected, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity. He demonstrates that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space.

2a. The Vedic understanding is similar to Haramein’s; everything in the universe is connected but the Vedas also say how; through Brahman, all pervading spiritual energy or atoms and the Supersoul, God immanent or Paramatma, who is within and without every atom. The Paramatma controls the spiritual and material atoms, and manifests or withdraws the qualities or energy or waves of these atoms, as one can dim or increase light. Both Brahman and Paramatma are emanations and features of God, Bhagavan or Krishna, who is in param-nirvana, transcendence, heaven, beyond matter.

3. Haramein claims that “matter is made up of 99.9 percent space.”

3a. At the time of creation, according to the Vedic descriptions, all is space. From 10% of space, by the control of the Paramatma, air, prana or vayu is created. This air is the atoms of space or ether, but without the sabda, vibration quality of ether. The element air means all the gaseous or airy elements.

From 10% of the airy elements, the element fire is created. They can explode, give of light or burn. From 10% of the fiery elements and due to the presence of Paramatma, water is created. This water includes all the liquid elements we find in nature. From 10% of the watery elements, earth is created. Earth means all the solid types of the elements. Thus we can see that of all the elements in the universe the element of space is the greatest. And all other elements are a transformation of space or ether atoms. And space is all pervading throughout all the elements as the fifth dimension. Dimension 1 to 4 being the solid, fluid, luminous, gaseous. Haramein says matter is made up of 99.9 percent space. The Vedas say

90% ether, and the other 10 % is also ether but as a transformation of ether.

All the transformations of energies are according to the laws of thermodynamics. The material atoms are put into motion or transforming by the powers of the Paramatma.

4. Nassim continues: “Quantum field theory states that the structure of

space-time itself, at the extremely small level, vibrates with tremendous intensity. If we were to extract even a small percentage of all the energy held within the vibrations present in the space inside your little finger, it would represent enough energy to supply the world’s needs for hundreds of years. This new discovery has the potential to open up access and harness that energy like never before, which would revolutionize life as we know it today.”

4. Dr. Albert Einstein postulated way back in 1917 the existence of energy in empty space. He said that the energy in space counterbalanced the effect of gravity and provided stability to the universe from collapsing on itself due to gravitational pull. He called it ‘Cosmological Constant.’ However, he withdrew later his postulation as a mistake when Astronomers found that the universe was not actually stable but was expanding. When Dr. A. Resiss and others found in 1998 that the universe was not only expanding, but expanding with an increasing pace, astronomers then revived the concept of Cosmological Constant with doubled conviction invoking it as the cause for accelerated expansion of the universe. Further, satellite studies in 2006 established that about 73 percent of the universe consisted of some invisible energy. (This figure now stands revised to 68.3 percent based on the Planck satellite data released in

2013). A comprehensive study in 2007 by Dr. Jesper Sollerman and Dr. Tamara Davis of Copenhagen University convincingly established that Einstein’s Cosmological Constant is this invisible energy. Quantum Physics provides the raison d’etre for the existence of energy in empty space.

5. At the basis of Haramein’s research is a bold prediction about the charge radius of the proton, which was recently verified by experiment. Less than a month after Haramein sent his paper to the Library of Congress, the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland released a new measurement for the size of the proton, confirming Haramein’s prediction.

6. “Protons are the primary building blocks of our universe – they are at the center of every atom and therefore are everywhere and in everything,” said Chris Almida, Executive Director of the Resonance Project Foundation, parent organization of HIUP. “It is critical that we accurately understand proton structure if we are to even begin to understand the ‘connected universe.’ Nassim’s prediction was confirmed and is exactly right (within

the margin of error of the experiment), whereas the Standard Model theory is off by a significant amount.”

6a. The Vedic wisdom states on this that the material energy is composed of the smallest particles called paramanus. This is the atom; atoms cannot be cut further. The paramanus are components of the six kinds of quarks (elementary subatomic particles), the six types of anti-quarks and the leptons (the electron, positron and neutron). These are the smallest particles known in the western science. Each of these particles is a little smaller then 10^-18cm. The size of the atom of the western materialistic science is 1 angstrom (10^-10cm).

6b. The paramanu according to the Nyaya-Vaisesika is 0.79x10^-22. This is its usual size, one sometimes finds other figures because this paramanu, being a living entity is elastic: it can shrink or expand. The radiations waves or energies, the modes or the gunas of the paramanus all differ. They mix to give varieties of quarks (elementary subatomic particles) and leptons. If these assemble then we get for example, mesons an elementary particle having a mass between that of an electron and proton (these particles were originally named mesotrons by Heisenberg), protons, antiprotons, hadrons, baryons, neutrons. Atoms and molecules are composed of these particles. The further combination of these particles will give the elements or the objects of unlimited varieties of qualities of our world. The qualities, modes or guna’s means in relation to rupa, sparsa, sabda, rasa and gandha (form, touch, sound, taste and smell). The paramanus are the building blocks of the universe and the gunas are like the concrete that bind the paramanus.

6c. The  2nd  Law  of Thermodynamics  describes  basic  principles  of everyday life, namely the universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. The atom however does not fall apart, because it is the smallest particle. The combination of atoms combine or disintegrate. The Vedas describe that it is the Paramatma or parama-atom, which we could also call the God- particle, who energizes the qualities or structures of the atoms, to keep particles together or fall apart, which we measure as time. The Paramatma causes time.

7a. All in all, it is not surprising that there are similarities between the

Vedic wisdom and the discoveries of Nassim Haramein since he took

inspiration from Vedic and Buddhistic texts for the ideas of his theory.

7b. The maintenance of these tremendous energies in the universe have an inexhaustible source and director of that energy or an energetic, all men call the inexhaustible, great God. Just as various electrical devices have various users of the energy, and a powerhouse and engineers at the beginning.

9. God exists.

The proof of the cosmological tale

1. In the August 2001 Sky and Telescope journal the editor Rick Fienberg in his editorial opening tries to explain the seemingly contradictory and illogical statements from modern cosmology. He imagines a conversation with a non-astronomer:

“The universe began with the Big Bang.” “Where did it happen?”

“‘It didn’t happen anywhere; it happened everywhere. Now the universe is expanding.”

“Into what?”

“Not into anything; space itself – space-time, actually – is expanding and carrying the galaxies with it. Astronomers used to think the expansion was slowing down as galaxies tugged on each other with gravity. Now they think the expansion is speeding up.”

“Really? What’s pushing it?”

“Something scientists call the ‘cosmological constant’ or ’vacuum energy.’ Most people just call it ‘dark energy.’”

“Oh, so it comes from dark matter?”

“No, that‘s different. Dark matter, like ordinary matter, pulls on stuff with its gravity. Dark energy pushes on stuff.”

“So the universe has been expanding faster and faster since the Big Bang, pushed by dark energy?”

“Not exactly. In the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the universe inflated like a balloon, but over the next few billion years the expansion slowed.”

“But you just said it’s speeding up.”

“It is now, but it wasn’t in the distant past, except during the early burst of inflation. It took a while for the outward push of dark matter to overcome the inward pull of dark matter and begin to accelerate the expansion.” “Oh. Well, what exactly is the dark energy?”

“Nobody knows. Some astronomers think it has something to do with quantum physics or higher dimensions.”

“Hmm. How about the dark matter – what’s that made of?”

“Nobody knows that either. Some of it may be made up of black holes[1], small planets, or dead stars too faint to see in telescopes. But most of it is probably made up of subatomic particles that haven’t been discovered yet.”

“The whole thing sounds made up to me.”

2. After this impasse, Fienberg comments:

“Of course, it’s not all made up – it’s backed up by abundant data, much of it very recent and very compelling. Nevertheless, modern cosmology is so counterintuitive that it sounds like nonsense. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that more people say they believe in a religious story of creation than in the story told by cosmologists.”

3. We have discussed these ‘abundant data’; they are not ‘compelling’ at all. The only sound and logical theory of cosmic creation, a creation or cosmic order that works perfectly like a Swiss watch, is intelligent design. When there is intelligent design there must have been an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling and willing. That person all men call God.

4. God exists.

NOTE:

1. The hole is called “black” because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing. A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed it can continue to grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. By absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes, supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses may form. There is general consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies.

The argument of the complexity of the Big Bang event

1. Before the Big Bang and very early in the expansion of the Big Bang’s beginning, the physical, chemistry and gravitational laws guiding them were very clearly in play - precisely and comprehensively. Otherwise an ordinary bang or explosion always causes chaos. The question is where did they come from?

2. These laws guiding the universe can’t have created themselves.

3. Newtonian or classical physics, and all sciences derived from physics, rest squarely on the principle of locality, the idea that correlated events are related by a chain of causation. And so everything has a cause and no law invented itself.

4. The laws and the mechanisms of the Big Bang had to work comprehensively and in perfect timing and synchronization, otherwise we would not have the universe that eventually developed, or subsequently, an earth habitable for life.

5. Within 10 to the -37 seconds of the Big Bang’s beginning expansion, there was a phase transition that caused exponential cosmic inflation or expansion.

6. Afterward, simple atomic nuclei formed within 3 minutes of the Big

Bang’s beginning.

7. All the necessary primary elements were produced; hydrogen with just the right amounts of helium and lithium, etc. All the critical primary elements came together via the laws of gravity. The question here again is from where and how this law of gravity popped up.

8. The Big Bang had to have just the right extreme temperatures, just the right size, rate and speed of expansion, just the right rate of cooling. Within 10 to the -6 seconds of the Big Bang beginning, protons and neutrons developed, etc.

9. All this is evidence of great precision amongst the required interactive mechanisms, processes, physics, chemistry, laws of motion, energy, etc. The many scientific laws that precisely guided/framed/controlled the many staggeringly complex processes, were already there at the very beginning.

10. If key components had occurred differently immediately even within minutes upon the expansion away from the Singularity the universe that

resulted would have been impossible.

11. Thus the complexity of the Big Bang is evidence of a highly controlled event that could have been done only by God.

12. God exists.

The argument that Big Bang means Big Brain

1. How all of a sudden there can be an explosion, by chance? Before an explosion takes place, there must be some arrangement. The bomb is prepared by somebody. The bomb is kept by somebody. The bomb is brought and put by somebody. After some time it explodes, activated by somebody. But brainless people give noble prize to rascals speaking: “By chance suddenly there was an explosion.”

2. Explosion was there because God was there. There was somebody, some brain, and that brain is God’s. Explosion is the proof of the existence of God.

Because we can accept something that is going on – what is proven. Can you show us an explosion suddenly by chance?

Because you say “there was explosion” that means there is God.

3. Then where did God come from? That is God. God is eternal, always existing. Just like I am, you are, also eternally existing. We are changing body. We are not the body. We are spiritual atom. Matter or the smallest subatomic particles are also eternal. They also have no “coming from.”

4a. We have never seen a pile or group of particles independently acting or getting into motion.

b. But persons moving things, balls, particles etc. that we can prove. We see this always within our experience.

5a. The particles in nature are moved, clustered, ordered, kneaded into planets, evolved or grown into plants, animals, humans etc. by super- humans called gods.

5b. Is there one all-pervading God, many gods in a hierarchy or are all equal?

The universes have as their reflection the human states or kingdoms, because this finite material world is the prison house part since the material body is the prison cell of the spirit soul.

Thus there is a hierarchy of gods and on the top is the best God. The best

means the Supreme in opulences such as intelligence (The Big Brain behind the Big Bang), wealth, power, good personal qualities, beauty, wisdom, love.

6. God exists.

The argument of the universe as a big juggling exhibition

1 . The universe means the total or the whole of the 10^23 planets, stars, moons etc. , according to western science or cosmology, the result of the Big Bang. Beyond this there is maybe some more universes and unlimited darkness, space. According to the Vedic science of the East, beyond these

10^23 circling balls there are 8 round walls so the whole universe looks like a huge ball. The first wall is 10 times thicker than the diameter of the space within. The second wall is 10 times thicker than the first wall. The third wall is 10 times thicker than the 2nd etc. And there are even more than 10^23 planets because there are many subtle, invisible planets.

2. All the 10^23 flying balls are circling. This is put up and kept up by a Supreme Juggler as in our experience only a juggler has balls systematically circling in the air.

3. Thus God immanent exists. But He is also transcendental to all this turmoil and turning. Who likes to live in such a hubble-bubble?

Just as a juggler does his art or work in a circus or theater but his real life of pleasure and love is at home.

Nor does God like to live within this closed small, finite ball-like universe. He likes the freedom in the infinity of the spiritual paradise.

4. God immanent is an expansion of God transcendent. This God in the universe is duty-bound to Generate, Operate and Destroy (G-O-D) the prison-house of matter for the rebel of/in paradise/heaven.

5. God exists. Heaven exists.

The argument of the Big Bang ‘explosion’

1. Most people think of the big bang as an explosion in space; however scientists use the term to describe the beginning of space, time, matter and energy.

2. Four characteristics—a singular beginning, cosmic expansion, and constant laws of physics including the law of decay—define a big bang universe.

3. The similarity between the Vedic description of the universe, written thousands of years ago, and the current scientific understanding of the universe is evidence for supernatural inspiration of the words of the Vedas.

4. That supernatural inspiration about the detailed knowledge of the universe could have come only from God.

5. God exists.

The argument of the Big Bang

1. The big bang is NOT a big “bang” as generally people understand the expression. This phrase reminds them of images of bomb blasts or exploding dynamite that yield disorder and destruction.

In World War II, there were many big bangs, but nothing positive came out of them. They were all destructive.

The atomic explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t create a television, radio or computer.

Then why should we think that a big bang created this precisely designed and marvelously varied universe?

2. In truth, this “bang” represents an immensely powerful yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space, and time within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws which govern their behavior and interactions.

3. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human potential for design by multiple orders of magnitude.

4. The power to move dead matter and by that to create a well designed order so great like our universe can come only from God.

5. God exists.

The proof that the ultimate cause is in heaven; there is no need of 

a cause of heaven because it is all or most perfect

1. God must be the cause of the Big Bang. He is the Big Brain behind the

Big Bang because explosions always have a personal cause.

And the cosmic order proves that the explosion and the materials or atoms are, after exploding, guided into all the forms of nature: planets, flora and fauna.

2. God doesn’t live here, ultimately. He expanded a form to do the material world; after all who likes to be eternally exploding or emanating and imploding matter. And pleasing and punishing the fallen foolish living entities, who are chasing after the shadows or inferior matter.

He delegated a director and creator of the prison house of the material world.

3. Thus God resides in heaven

a. There is no need of a cause behind heaven and God. That world is all perfect.

Just as deluded living entities don’t bother about or need another world; matter is ok for them, as the worm living in excrement.

b. Or just as the kingdom of Rama (-raja) is the ultimate and beyond the prison of the kingdom, so heaven is the ultimate and beyond the cosmic prison-house. Thus heaven is the ultimate perfection and has no cause or something higher.

4. God or the Ultimate and Supreme Personality of Godhead, along with

Heaven, exists.

The proof that a tiny airplane is flying in the sky and it is making so much sound but millions and trillions of planets are floating and there is no sound

1. The earth has two movements. It is rotating and also going around the sun but we cannot feel any movement or hear any sound.

The speed of the earth rotating on its axis is 1,675 km/hour or 465 meters/second.

The earth’s speed around the sun is about 30 km/s (108,000 km/h), which is fast enough to cover the planet’s diameter (about 12,700 km) in seven minutes, and the distance to the Moon of 384,000 km in four hours.

The earth has a layer of atmosphere. The space through which the planets move is not with the friction as in the earth’s atmosphere.

2. To get the airplane flying one needs a creator of the engine, the vehicle etc. One needs a pilot, a maintenance crew. For the more perfect earth planet, for example, one also needs engineers, creators etc. and a pilot. So many arrangements are necessary to fly 500 passengers in a Boeing

747; for food, drinking, sitting, sleeping, music, television, wifi (computer network), doctors (first aid), toilet etc.

3. The earth has 7 billion human passengers;

approximately 30 million animal species that equals many trillions of animal passengers;

Around  400,000  plant  species  that  equals  many  trillions  of  plant passengers.

There must be a grand maintenance company behind this huge flying city, country or ball.

4. Airplanes fly for pleasure but they crash. And, the flying and the destiny of the plane is suffering or something mediocre. Planets never crash. Life in this prison house of matter is suffering, ignorant and temporary.

5. God’s expansion, the creator, creates and controls matter.

God, the controller and enjoyer of the spiritual energy is in the spiritual world as the prison director is in the jail and the president or king in their palace.

6. God, who is in His many forms, but who is One, exists.

The Argument of the Supreme Architect

1. The universe consists of 10^80 atoms building blocks- atoms. Everything is in a constant coming and going; we see creation maintenance and destruction of the flora fauna humans and planets. This is all done by a group of Supreme engineers, architects, masonries and builders or contractors.

2. This world is imperfect, faulty and deficient. There is disease, old age and death. There are the calamities of nature. There is interpersonal cold and hot wars. On the whole there is more suffering then pleasure. The creation is a masterpiece of art but not paradise.

3. An architect, engineer, contractor or builder makes his own house the best.

Similarly,  the  supreme  architect,  engineer,  builder-  God-  lives  in  a paradise or heaven.

4. God and His original abode in the spiritual world or heaven exist.

The argument of the mind of all matter in the universe

1. “The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is ‘the notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.’”

2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe’s nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe what is for atheists the unbelievable — that the Universe is mental.

3. According  to  Sir  James  Jeans  an  astronomer,  mathematician  and physicists of Princeton University: “the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter…we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”

4. Matter cannot produce mind but rather a thoughtful mind can produce structures of matter. If we leave all the molecules or atoms of the brain on a pile under Mother Nature’s sky no brain or mind will ever be produced by thunderbolts, high pressures or typhoons. But a person with a mind can create e.g. a computer.

5. This means mind pre-existed to matter.

6. A mind is a property of a person and the mind of the universe can only be God’s.

7. God exists.

The argument of the miniature universe

1. If some man creator would make a miniature cosmos, with all the

10^23 planets, rotating stars and star clusters, moons and planets circling, with the clouds and winds moving, the flora and fauna, that human creator would be glorified for making this huge, fine piece of art.

2. Such a miniature cosmos would never ever arise spontaneously, by chance or evolution from a pile of atoms. No chance. The chance would be 0.000 x 10^infinite.

3. God, the creator of the material world exists.

The argument of unbelievable history

1. The chunk or singularity or totality of material atoms in chaos had a Big Bang. By this the basic, and only existing at that time, particles of matter created first gas, then clouds of matter, then planets. Then

8.400.000 forms of life.

2. Suppose you have to make a film of this theory. Each step of this film needs a huge movie company with several engineers, industrial designers, architects, building companies etc. etc. etc. and the head man (producer).

3. Similarly, God and gods emanate and evolve the planetary systems.

4. God exists.

The argument of the smooth “big bang” and “big crunch” model

1a. Science finds that the “big bang”, the cause of the creation of the universe, was a gradual evolution. This is established by measuring the background radiation in the universe.

1b. Science in great detail registers the effect of this “Big Bang”. They describe that the universe has design, and esthetic and powerful energies. By seeing what the Big Bang brought forth, we see the Creator is God, the Supreme Person.

Person according to the dictionary means someone thinking, feeling and willing.

Design means thinking. Esthetics, beauty means feeling. Energy means will power.

1c. There is a creator and controller of the universe. The cause of the universe must have had the properties of God. By qualifying the indescribable Bang to have all these potencies science conforms to the Vedic definition of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

1d. God exists.

2a. Where is He, who is He?

This is the world of laws. Kala (time), karma (activity), klesa (miseries firm the body and mind, demigods or material nature and other living entities) and guna (the ropes of maya goodness, passion and ignorance). The lawgiver or king lives beyond the world of laws in a palace or

paradise.

And a king (as in Ramaraja or Dwarakaraja) is wise, blissful with all opulence (rich, powerful, beauty), all good qualities (such as saintliness).

2b. So God is in heaven and is full of all opulence.

3a. How the creation took place

The evolution or emanation smooth big bang within the shells of the universe took place according to Vedas from Brahma, the creator of the planets, stars and moons, with all their residents.

There is also an expansion, processed from Garbhodakasayi Visnu.

He is also within the shells of the universe. From His navel bursts out or grows a lotus flower on which Lord Brahma sits. Brahma and the creation ingredients come forth from this Visnu, through the stem of this lotus flower.

4. Another evolutionary “Big Bang” is from MahaVisnu. He emanates the 35 million universes, from the pores of His body. From each pore comes one universe. From Him expands the above Garbhodakasayi Visnus (also 35 million).

5a. MahaVisnu expands, bangs or flows forth from MahaSankarsana, who is an eternal extension of Balarama in Dvaraka, who is an eternal expansion  from  Balarama  in Vrindavana,  the  ultimate  abode  of  the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna. Balarama is from the original Krishna, the Supreme and first of the Personalities of Godhead. These personalities can be compared with the prison-director, the minister of justice, the King in His office (Maha-Visnu), the King in His palace (Maha-Sankarsana), and the King and his brother in His holiday resort (Krishna and Balarama).

5b. Krishna, God, exists.

The argument by sun and maintenance

1. Steadily giving out light the sun will continue to do so for about 150 trillion years, according to the Vedas.

2. The sun is already shining for 150 trillion years.

3. Therefore, the question is what causes the sun to steadily giving light.

4. As behind shining electric bulbs is the creator of the bulb, and the engineer and director of the electricity powerhouse, so behind this design, creation and maintenance of the sun is God.

5. God exists.

The argument of the supervision of order

1. We find in nature many laws like the law of gravitation, the laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics.

2. Just as in any state, the government or the king makes different laws and supervises their subjects that the laws are carried out, so the laws of nature had to be generated and supervised by some intelligent being.

3. So, for everything that happens according to those laws there has to be a supervisor or controller.

4. Man can create small laws and control limited things in his domain, but nature’s grand laws had to be created by a big brain, an extraordinarily powerful person who can supervise that those laws are carried out.

5. Such an extraordinary, omnipotent person can be only God.

6. Hence, God exists.

The argument of the nature of established laws

1. Physical or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Law is defined in the following ways: a. Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies,

1992:82)

b. Stable. They are unchanged since they were first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws). c. Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)

2. Some of the examples of scientific or nature’s laws are:

a. The law of relativity by Einstein.

b. The four laws of thermodynamics. c. The laws of conservation of energy. d. The uncertainty principle etc.

e. Biological laws

i. Life is based on cells. ii. All life has genes.

iii. All life occurs through biochemistry. iv. Mendelian inheritance.

f. Conservation Laws. i. Noether’s theorem.

ii. Conservation of mass.

iii. Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum. iv. Conservation of charge .

3. Einstein said that the laws already exist, man just discovers them.

4. Only an omnipotent, absolute eternal person can give absolute, stable and omnipotent laws for the whole universe.

5. That person all men call God or Krishna.

6. Hence God exists.

Arguments from Quantum mechanics

The argument of quantum mechanics

1. According to some experiments in quantum mechanics it is now proven that there are forces by which information spreads through the universe instantaneously, much faster than the speed of light. This is called quantum non-locality.

2. We know that nothing happens without consciousness or direction.

3.  That  all-pervading  consciousness  that  is  instantly  transmitting information belongs to a superhuman person.

4. This is the dictionary definition of the person called God.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Argument from quantum physics

1. Sub-atomic particles seem to come into existence from nowhere. Nowhere means no designations, forms, names, qualities, activities; the quantum vacuum is not empty but has a super high energy density which is undetectable by the material senses and its measuring instruments. Or alternatively, this vacuum is another dimension then gross matter.

2. Either God is creating or manifesting the particles- the position of theism- or nothing is creating them- the position of atheism-. Creating means being brought from non-manifestation to manifestation.

3. It makes no sense to say that nothing is creating them. The particles also cannot come into existence by accident. nihil sine causa. ex nihilo nihil fit- from nothing, nothing comes. There is always causa causens – real cause, causa efficiens – mechanical cause and causa primaria- first cause. Every why has a therefore. There is no accident; we have called something chance for which we can’t see a cause. No clock runs strikes or rings just like that. The course of nature is the art of God.

4. Therefore, God does exist.

The evidence of the conscious observer

1. How the concept of consciousness is something not material—non- physical and non-chemical is proven by various experiments. In modern physics this is already a basic principle for the last fifty or sixty years, but not widely admitted or taught in the schools.

2. In modern physics or quantum mechanics the materialistic scientists realize that in order to describe physical processes you have to include the observer in the picture; you can’t describe these things without accounting for the observer, and so they made an analysis. This was, for example, done by von Neumann, one of the modern physicists.

3. He analyzed the difference between the observer and the observed. For example, when a man looks through a microscope at some object, you can draw the line between the observer and the observed object.

4. Now, according to the physicist’s idea, physically there are equations which describe all the molecules and forces of interaction on the observed side. And there’s another kind of equation that goes in quantum mechanics, which corresponds to the observer’s side, and this equation is completely different from the first equation.

5. So this indicates that the observer must be something different in nature from the observed.

6. The boundary between the observer and the observed can be moved and is kind of arbitrary. You can move the boundary back so now the observed becomes the eyeball and the microscope and the object, and the observer is still on the other side. And the basic idea is you can move this boundary back, step by step, and on one side you can put, at least

in principle, more and more of the parts of the body into the observed system, but on the other side you still have the observer, and he continues to be described by an equation that can’t be reduced to the force laws that are used to describe the observed.

7. So the conclusion is that the observer must be something nonphysical. He’s not part of the physical body at all and that is basic in quantum mechanics.

8. There’s also another line of evidence here. It’s the inspiration. For example the mathematician Gauss who lived in the nineteenth century was solving various mathematical problems.

9. A very difficult mathematical problem, the person never solves by figuring it out consciously, step by step. What happens is that one tries very hard to figure out the solution for a long time, but nothing happens, and then all of a sudden the answer comes to him.

10. This is what many times happened to Gauss and he wrote down how, when and where.

11. There are many examples of sudden inspiration of various people in the fields of mathematics, art, philosophy, science etc.

12. The intelligence from where a sudden inspiration comes is the form direction of the non-physical, transcendental Supersoul or God who is the observer of our soul’s desires, and rewards these according to karma.

13. God exists.

The proof of consciousness that preceded material reality

1. Materialism stated that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus has no particular special position within material reality.

2. However: “The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non- mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (The mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - Johns Hopkins University)

3. Thus consciousness preceded material reality and Quantum Mechanics

(QM) reveals that consciousness has a special, even central, position1 within material reality.

4. The consciousness that preceded material reality is a property of a person all men call God.

5. God exists. NOTE:

1. QM represents reality in terms of wave functions or probability functions. So how do we get from probability to actuality? That occurs by observation or conscious awareness, which shrinks probability down to a singular perception. All measurements or observations therefore depend on consciousness.

The quantum argument from love

1. Nothing exists, quite literally, in the beginning. All is at rest. No qualities and activities are manifest in matter.

2. As Quantum Physics says, the universe at work is just that positively charged void. The quantum vacuum at time zero is not empty but has a high energy density, but inactive.

3. “Love” is the thing that caused this cosmic imbalance within nothingness, resulting in the appearance of things.

4. Therefore, God and His Goddess, the Supreme Lover and Beloved or the Supreme Beloved and Lover, the Causes of all love, exist.

Arguments from history

The proof of the 3.8 Billion year-old photosynthesis

1. “What we concluded is that, by discounting hydrogen peroxide oxidation, anoxygenic photosynthetic micro-organisms are the most likely mechanism responsible for Earth’s oldest iron formations,” Ernesto Pecoits of the Université Paris Diderot and lead author on the study told astrobio.net.

2. Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the

atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III).

3. “In other words, they oxidize the iron,” explains Pecoits. “This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Billion year-ago).”

4. The abstract of the scientific research paper: “It is widely accepted that photosynthetic bacteria played a crucial role in Fe(II) oxidation and the precipitation of iron formations (IF) during the Late Archean–Early Paleoproterozoic (2.7–2.4 Ga). It is less clear whether microbes similarly caused  the  deposition  of  the  oldest  IF  at  ca.  3.8  Ga,  which  would imply photosynthesis having already evolved by that time. Abiological alternatives, such as the direct oxidation of dissolved Fe(II) by ultraviolet radiation may have occurred, but its importance has been discounted in environments where the injection of high concentrations of dissolved iron directly into the photic zone led to chemical precipitation reactions that overwhelmed photooxidation rates. However, an outstanding possibility remains with respect to photochemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere that might generate hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), a recognized strong oxidant for ferrous iron. Here, we modeled the amount of H2O2 that could be produced in an Eoarchean atmosphere using updated solar fluxes and plausible CO2, O2, and CH4 mixing ratios. Irrespective of the atmospheric simulations, the upper limit of H2O2 rainout was calculated to be pay-wall.”

5. Atheistic science says the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Vedas can agree with 2 billion years old.

Atheistic science teaches that it took 2 -2.5 billion years for the first life forms to come; the marine- or sea life. The Vedas say: “No, 2 billion years ago the creation of all the species started. God doesn’t need evolution. Yes, the beginning was sea life, but then very soon all the other evolutes.” Atheists say 4.5 billion because they see in the strata the marine fossils 2 billion years old, so they calculate it took 2- 2.5 billion years for these to come, so the earth is 4.5 billion. The Vedas say: “No, the earth population is since 2 billion years. The earth was created or again taken out of the Garbha ocean 2 billion years ago”

Life was manifest in the universe 2 billion years ago, again. The life comes and goes in cycles of Day and Night of the universe every 8.64

billion years. A Day is 4.32 billion years. A Night also 4.32 billon years. At the night of the universe, life in the universe is sleeping, but alive.

6. According to Srimad Bhagavatam 3.13, at the beginning of the day of Brahma, the earth is submerged in the Garbha Ocean and Lord Varaha brings it up. So the earth is not completely destroyed, but submerged. So there could be some iron there. The scientists could also have their dates wrong; in the first line of the article the scientists admit they are speculating when they say “discounting” and “the most likely mechanism”.

7. The shells of the universe were created 155.521.972.949.116 years ago, but these shells are not visible for the telescopes; these are 2 billion yojanas away– this is on the scale of cosmic distances, many, many zillions of miles.

8. Atheistic science says that the Big Bangs in the quantum field started

10-15 billion years ago. From the Bang to gasses, condensing, etc to the earth planet is 5.5 billion years, by a gradual process.

9.  Seeing  the  universe  with  100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 perfectly   round   balls,   some   being   cosmic   lamps,   circling   in

5.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 orbits, never clashing,

the Vedas say it must have been a guided process by a Superhuman Engineer, Ball Thrower or Big Brain. He did it immediately, no need of evolving as in slow motion. So we come to the Big Bang/Brain taking place 2 billion years ago, not 10-15 billion y, by scientific reasoning.

9. B. The Big Brain evolved the Cosmos, along with a very detailed

Manuel, the Veda.

In these Vedas, books of knowledge, we also find the history of the universe; all the data

we mentioned above.

10. God, the Supreme Person with the Biggest Brain, exists.

11. The History of the universe is as follows.

12. The modern Westerner knows atheism that explains that the predecessors of the monkeys and humans bubbled up from the primordial soup, which arose after the Big Bang. They say that the primitive humans came out of the hot Africa, mainly through the Caucasus area, to Central and Northern Asia Europe, because this was the only access by land to the north when the ice melted in the North and the North became habitable.

13. Directly south of the Caucasus spring the rivers Euphrates and Tigris.

This area is the country of origin of Abraham’s family. This is where Adam and Eve lived after they lost paradise or the Garden of Eden. The mountain “Ararat” in the southern part of the Caucasus is the mountain where Noah’s Ark released the surviving species.

14. This is the homeland of the Indo-European Caucasian (white) race.

15. The Vedic literature has an origin story that is different from the previous, yet it has intriguing surprising parallels. According to the Vedas, everything starts with Sri Narayana, God, Krishna.

16. The Aitareya  Upanishad  states  that  He  (God)  thought:  “Shall  I bring forth the worlds?” And he brought forth the worlds. After being inspired by hearing mantra- divine sound- Brahma created the world. At the beginning of Brahma’s life the mantra was Aum or OM, but later it became the mantra: klim krishnaya govindaya gopijanavallabaya svaha. These are names of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krishna means All-Attractive, Govinda, the herdsman of wish-fulfilling cows, Gopijanavallabha, the one in love with the divine cowherd-women.

17. One of Brahma’s sons was Marici. His son was Kasyapa Muni. From this Muni came, about 120 million years ago, at the beginning of this manvantara (era), the Indo-Europeans. Kasyapa Muni meditated near the Caspian Sea, which is named after him.

See step 12 and 13, how this is parallel with modern science and the western and middle-east religions.

18. From the marriage of Kasyapa and Aditi, Vivasvan, the sun god was born. Also the Sri Rama Avatara (incarnation, literally one who descends from the spiritual world to the material world), God, took His birth in Vivasvan’s family or the Surya-vamsa, the family of the progenitor Surya, the sun god.

19. From the marriage of Kasyapa and Diti came the Daityas - “of Diti” - or demons. They spread over the West (Europe). The names “Titans” and “Teutons” were given later and are derived from the word daitya.

20. Another  son  of  Brahma  was Atri.  Soma  or  Candra  (the  divine manifestation or demigod, who governs the moon) came from Atri. Buddha (not of the Buddhists), the king of the planet Mercury came from Candra. A son of Buddha was Pururava. Ayu came from him. From Ayu came Nahusha and from Nahusha, Yajati. Yajati had five sons, including Yadu. From Yadu came the Yadu dynasty in which Krishna and Balarama

appeared. The Vaisnavas consider Vishnu an expansion of Krishna, and thus under Krishna and Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

21. From Yayati’s son Puru came the Kuru dynasty in which Bhisma, Dhritarastra, Arjuna, Yudhisthira, Bhima , Duryodhana and Maharaja Pariksit were born.

22. Another son of Puru was Pravira. His son was Manasyu (“yu,” the uniter) also called Menes, who according to Western historians founded the first dynasty in Egypt. The name Paurava’s, Puru’s descendants, later corrupted to “Pharaohs.” Yadu and the other sons of Yayati were forced to work under Puru. Eventually they went out of Egypt and were persecuted. Here Judaism arose.

23. Egypt was named after Ajapati, the son of the Aja clan. Aja was the grandfather of Lord Sri Ramacandra. Sri Ramacandra appeared in the Surya-vamsa (family) of Vivasvan and Vaivasvata Manu. Another name for Suryadeva (an expansion of Krishna) God immanent is Ravi. Ra was their supreme God, the creator of this branch of the Surya vamsa. Siva or (Maha) Isvara, the controller of the material world, became Osiris.

The pyramids were built on the model of the smasana-cit altars for the Vedic cremation rituals. The positions of the various parts of the building reflect the positions of the stars and the upper parts points out for the soul, the Pitri-lokas, a kind of heavenly planets.

24. Also, some members of the Pandava family came to Egypt (and Europe) after Dvaraka, Krishna’s residence on this planet, disappeared. They settled in Ishwar (God) laya (country) or Israel. From the Essenes (Isa means controller, a name of Siva. They were worshipers of Siva) came Jesus (Isa) Christ (of Krishna).

25. Three other rebellious sons of Yajati got kingdoms outside India. Yavana (or Turvasu) got Turkey, Persia. According to the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 85.34) Turvasu fought for Duryodhana on the battlefield of Kuruksetra. Anu was given Greece and Italy.

26. Again there was a migration, put in motion by Parasurama (also a descendant of Pururava) who drove out a branch of the Yadu’s demonic Haihaya kings and followers, mainly to Egypt. They were kings there. Some came to Europe and mingled with the barbarians there and others settled in the border regions of Europe and Asia, Turkey and Greece.

27. Around 4000 BC Druhyu, the fifth son of Yayati, was exiled to

Europe. From Druhyu came the Druids, who were in turn connected to the Dravidians, followers of the wise man (“vid”) Drastha. Some barbarian tribes (more or less ksatriya) came from him. This settled mainly in France and England.

28. Around the same time the Saxena’s, a ksatriya clan, were expelled from India. These were the Saxons, who settled in Western Europe.

29. The Kuruksetra war in 3138 BC, described in the Mahabharata and where the Bhagavad-Gita was spoken by Krishna, destroyed the global varnasrama-dharma system, or Vedic social-political system and it gradually fell into disrepair.

30. Before this the Vedic culture was more or less everywhere, but mainly in India. Civilization means living in a pleasant environment, such as the tropics. Therefore Patala-bhumi (the hellish or low land), the western hemisphere and particularly the north, were avoided.

31. Around 2000 BC various groups of India’s Indo-Europeans left to go to the west. Just as it had already happened before: to teach (such as a group of shamans, scholars, which later became known as Germans), to rule and to establish varnasrama-dharma system or to emigrate, because the river Sarasvati was dried up. Also some were exiled after the decline of the Vedic lifestyle.

32. In 800 BC the Kalatoya came to the West. They were from the area south of Kashmir. These became the Celts. They left India in 2000 BC when the river Sarasvati dried up. In 1000 BC they arrived at the Danube, the river that flows through the land of the Danavas or demons.

33. The people of Alinas (Hellenes) were one of the first who migrated from India (to Greece, in Greek “Hellas”). According to the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 174.38) Bhima and Sahadeva conquered the Pulindas (Greeks) because they had given up dharma.

33b. Thus in any part of the Earth we, mortals, can trace our origin and genealogical table or tree.

One of our common ancestors or forefathers is Kasyapa Rsi (=muni or sage), whose father is Marici. His father is Brahma, whose cause is Garbhodakasayi Visnu, who is from Maha-Visnu, who is from Maha- Sankarsana. Above Him is Sankarsana or Balarama in Dvaraka, then above Him is Mula– or Adi-Sankarsana or Balarama in Vrndavana, then Krishna, The First, The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

34.  The  word  Norway  is  derived  from  the  Sanskrit  narak,  or  hell. Soviet comes from sveta (white). Russia from rushis or rsis (sages), who meditated there. Siberia from the Sanskrit word for inhospitable, camping. Scandinavia from Skanda, the commander of the denizens of heaven. They navigated on behalf of Skanda and worshiped Skanda.

The word Viking and the English “king” is derived from the Sanskrit singh (lion). The Vikings were big white-haired daityas.

35. The Alpine name is derived from “alpa”, small. They are small compared to the Himalayas.

36. In many places in Europe murti’s (images) of Krishna, Shiva and other divine manifestations were found.

37. According to the puranas, the history books of the Vedas, and the smaller puranas, the Upa puranas, there were floods around 11,000 BC to the end of the Ice Age. Vaivasvata Manu (Noah) and his family were, thanks to their boat, practically the only survivors. After twelve great wars between the deva’s (divine) and the asuras (demons, the wicked) east of the Caucasus was assigned to the deva’s and west to the demons. Both were members of the Surya-vamsa.

38. Some demons were along with Maya-danava exiled to South America, Patala bhumi / loka, or the inferior country under (and opposite of) Punya- Bhumi, the pious or prosperous land. Maya-danava is the engineer under the Danavas. His permanent residence is Talatala-loka (9000 yojanas south of the Bhu-mandala) where the UFOs, flying saucers, are created. The Mayans, followers of Mayadanava, called their land Amaraka, of “Amaru” (immortal). Demons often think that death is something that will not happen to them.

39. Evolution and Big Bang are wrong. Thus God did the Creation. God descended 5000 years ago.

40. Krishna, God, exists.

Arguments from philosophy of science

The proof that there is no proof that God does not exist; there is no evidence, and experience that non-gods (chance, forces, energies, nature) control the events in the cosmos. It can only be done by divine persons.

1. No scientists has been able to show or prove by experiment or even

by theory all the steps from before the Big Bang to the molecules, amino acids, proteins, microbes, plants, fishes, reptiles, mammals to the 7 billion humans as per the year 2015.

2. Even if some scientist could imitate some steps of the process in nature then it was he, the person, who in his laboratory did, what the gods are already doing in nature; he made it in his laboratory, proving that there is no chance or mechanistic evolution in nature.

3. In human society no events are done by chance, forces, energies or nature.

4. The cosmos is created, maintained and active because of Gods, unseen persons. That is the only way it can be explained.

5. The hierarchy or system of divine managers of the cosmos ends with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in heaven as the hierarchy of managers of the prison house and state has at the top the king in his palace.

6. There is no proof or argument against God’s existence; that Brahman

(spiritual light) or sunya (zero) or any non-god create and control.

7. God exists.

The argument of the supreme scientist

1. When we think calmly and carefully about this wonderful universe, we can see that everything is working under the control of a supreme brain. The arrangements in nature are perfectly ordered. Things would be at random without the careful planning of a scientific and engineering brain. It is a common understanding that there is a cause behind each action. A machine cannot run without an operator. Modern scientists are very proud of automation, but there is a scientific brain behind automation also. When we talk about “brain” and “operator,” these terms imply a person.

2. Examples of the wonderful creations of the Supreme Scientist, the

Supreme Creator Krishna.

- The energy the sun emits in one second is greater than the whole amount of energy the human species has consumed throughout its entire history. Yet it is only one of the countless number of stars floating in the sky. This material universe is running like intricate, well-oiled clockwork according to great natural physical laws and principles. Scientists have gained great acclaim for making a few spaceships, whereas Krishna effortlessly produces gigantic spaceships, such as planets and stars, which are perfectly equipped and maintained. Each year the seasons change quite periodically, producing symptoms unique to each season.

-The molecular framework for each definite color or aroma is wonderfully unique. A little change in position of a few atoms in the molecule, a little variation in the geometry of the molecule or a slight change in the size of the molecule can cause a color to change from orange to red, a mild, pleasing aroma to become repellent and pungent, and a flavor to change from sweet to bitter.

-Charcoal, graphite and diamonds are all derived from the same element, carbon, and yet the shining and transparent diamond is extremely hard, whereas graphite is soft, black and opaque. This is due to the difference in the crystalline forms of these molecules. In the crystal lattice of the diamond, each carbon atom is tetrahedrally surrounded by four other carbon atoms at a distance of 1.54 angstroms (one angstrom = 10<-8> cm.). In graphite, by contrast, the three bonds of each carbon atom are distorted so as to lie in the same plane, the fourth bond being directed perpendicularly to this plane to link with a carbon atom of the neighboring layer.

In this way we can cite innumerable examples of molecular networks so fantastically and delicately arranged that chemists cannot but wonder about the most expert hand and brain who is making all these wonderful artistic arrangements in His laboratory.

-Professor R.B. Woodward of Harvard, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1965) and Professor A. Eschenmoser of Zurich took eleven years to synthesize the vitamin B12 molecule. Altogether, ninety-nine scientists from nineteen different countries were involved just to accomplish this one small task. Yet Krishna is making all these complex molecules at will, in a moment.

3. The Supreme Scientist (Inventor and Creator), God exists.

The proof of reincarnation (A)

and liberation (B)

A

1.  Ian  Stevenson  a  psychiatrist  and  the  director  of  the  Division  of

Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia School of Medicine became well known for his research into reincarnation, the idea that emotions, memories, and even physical injuries in the form of birthmarks, can be transferred from one life to another.

2. Over a period of 40 years, he recorded 3,000 cases of children around the world who claimed to remember past lives, providing thus a nowadays respected collection of scientific proof for reincarnation.

3. Many persons claiming to have lived before exhibit special skills, such as playing an instrument or speaking a language they appeared not to have learned. The many details that were recorded from them were all verified for example the name, living place, the names of family members and stories connected to them.

4. The Vedic wisdom similarly speaks about the soul reincarnating from one life to another carrying with him the particular way of thinking, feelings and desires. As long as there are material desires and material attachments to this material world one has to be born again.

5. It is seen that a particular soul takes birth in a particular family which has a similar mentality or talent; since the soul cannot choose in which family to take birth there must be a controller that guides his wanderings life after life.

6. That guide has to be all-pervading to know the mentalities of all the living entities.

7. This is the description of God who guides all the souls, life after life.

8. God exists.

The proof of the dynamite made tunnel.

1. Atheist: Our theory is that there was a big chunk and from that everything else came.

It exploded. A big bang occurred within some chemicals. If you think the term chunk outdated, it can be compared in modern science with a field or cloud of singularities, which are big banging and creating multi- universes.

2. Theist: Where did the chunk come from? As a hill of earth is composed of many sub-atomic particles in a specific, highly complex structure of atoms and molecules, you have to prove that impersonal forces will act,

or are acting and create a primordial situation– the chunk. You have to put a collection of sub-atomic particles in a certain place and see what happens.

Where is the evidence that a chunk explodes automatically? We do not have that experience. There is an explosion within a mountain to create a tunnel when there is dynamite and the dynamite is provided by someone. How can an explosion take place without the hand of someone, a living entity? Where is the proof of matter acting automatically? First of all, the question will be, “Who made this chunk?” Then, the next question will be, “How did the explosion take place unless it was arranged by a living being?”

Is there any evidence that matter explodes without a living being’s touch?

3. Atheist: Yes, the sun. There are so many explosions going on within the sun every day.

4. Theist: That is the philosophy of vriscika-tandula-nyaya - a hill of rice gives birth to scorpions. Explosions are going on, but behind all these explosions, all these transformations, is the Supreme Lord. If there is a gas leak or high voltage electricity in a house or factory and an explosion takes place, someone made the gas tank or pipes, or the electricity system in which the explosion took place.

Has anyone seen the Big Bang starting to create by nature or quantum fluctuations? As you say, “Show me. Seeing is believing.”

5. Atheist: Did you see the beginning?

6. Theist: We see a man-made planetarium, robots, dummies, plastic flowers etc. built by designers who are conscious entities. Therefore logically the Big Bang had intelligent designers, engineers and builders. You are postulating the chunk and that it exploded, but you cannot explain how the chunk exploded. Sometimes we see that a patch of earth is heated by the sunshine and eventually causing it to crack. Sometimes we see miles of cracked clay. It is due to the sunshine drying it and at a certain point it breaks. Similarly, the total material energy in the form of a chunk, or a sea of particles, is agitated by the glance of Maha-vishnu and the modes of material nature begin to act. He can agitate the material energy, and the creation begins. Just like you’ll find on the ground, so many flowers and grasses are coming up. How? By the sunrise, the glance of the sun. Where there is no sunshine, there the vegetables do not grow.

We have got practical experience. If there is no sun, the field or the earth is not exploding with the vegetation. It is due to the sunshine. Therefore it is coming out. To the foolish person, the power behind the explosion is not visible. Naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavritah [Bg.

7.25]. Krishna says that “I am not visible to everyone, they are being covered by the curtain of yoga-maya.” Mudhah nabhijanati mam ebhyah param avyayam. Tribhir gunamayir bhavair mohitah. We do not know who is the architect of the material creation. That is Maha-vishnu, God immanent. There are many isvaras– controllers. Even in this material world there are innumerable isvaras, but the scripture has analyzed that the supreme isvara is Krishna. Isvarah paramah krishnah [Bs. 5.1]: “There is no higher isvara than Krishna.” Krishna also says, mattah parataram nanyat: [Bg. 7.7] “There is no more. This is the end.” As behind the designers, engineers and builders of the tunnel under the mountain, is the government, and the government is controlled by the president.

7. God exists, and enjoys in heaven.

The proof of eternal consciousness moving matter

1. Atheist: you say that it is life which makes matter move, but we scientists don’t accept that.

2. Theist: How it is moving?

3. Atheist: It’s a certain combination of matter.

4. Theist: You make it. That means experiment. You simply observe, but you have no experiment. Therefore it is not science.

You have to demonstrate knowledge.

You make in the laboratory or science institute, matter moving by this combination. Otherwise it is useless. Therefore two things must be there: observation and experiment, practical and theoretical. Theoretical— something is there moving. Now you make it practical to see that this chemical combination is the original cause. Now take the chemicals and make experiment.

b. First of all explain something theoretically, as on high school: “Hydrogen, oxygen-mix together it becomes water.” It is faith. Then it is practically shown in the laboratory. So faith is the beginning. Theoretical knowledge means faith. Then experiment.

c. Atheist: “It is DNA, RNA”. Theist: If you know what is life or the cause, then why don’t you replace it in a dead body and make it alive? What is that DNA? Put it into use. In the classroom you theorize: “This DNA is going this way, that way...” Now, who has made this arrangement, exactly going and in the same way all the time? You cannot manufacture DNA and the movements also. Very wonderful things are going on. You try to imitate nature, and you cannot; nature has better scientists then you. d. You give any explanation except eternal consciousness. You give some alternative explanation than eternal consciousness; you say chance, just nature doing, quantum-so-and-so. But if you proof these forces in a scientific experiment you have proven that consciousness is the cause.

5. Atheist: It is some wonderful chemical mixture that we have not discovered yet, very mysterious chemistry. It is all based on this idea of a study of quantum forces, genes and chromosomes, genetics. We have so many words for describing how it happens.

Theist: Jugglery, word jugglery. Atheist: DNA, RNA.

Theist: But still you can’t explain the power force that activates them. You still can’t explain the actual source of power that activates those chemicals.

6. Theist: Make an egg.

Atheist: In principle we can make all chemicals in the egg. But they don’t make life, yet.

Theist: In the future you can do everything, but at the end it is failure. Atheist: The chemical composition of the egg can be synthesized.

Theist: I say that you do it, and make it egg-shaped, and now we have artificial incubation.

Why take the egg from the chicken?

Atheist: We can make the chemicals, but life cannot come out of that. Theist: Then why do you say that life comes from chemicals? Why do you make this false propaganda? That is our protest. You cannot do it, and still you make false propaganda.

7. Atheist: Khorana from MIT, the Indian who got the Nobel Prize some years ago, is one of the big scientists in this molecular biology. He synthesized this code gene, one of the small fragments of the DNA molecule. It’s supposed to be the basic molecule for all living systems. So

the promise was about ten years ago that once they synthesized this gene, complete synthesis, then they’ll be able to make life in the test tube. But it’s not working. They have synthesized it now. We failed.

8. Life/ eternal consciousness/ God and the eternal soul cause matter to move.

9. God exists.

The argument of the science of science

1. Atheist: we can see that by these inborn laws of nature all these things are going on. We don’t see where there is need of some person behind it. These things are going on. Each planet has its own gravitational force; therefore they are balancing each other in the universe.

2. Theist: You do that. You float one ball if you are so confident.

3. Atheist: I cannot do it, but nature is doing it.

4. Theist: You do not know who is doing. You are thinking everyone like you. Everyone is thinking that ‘the other party is like me.’ When a planetarium is seen, a child says ‘it is just going on’, but the only cause is a designer and constructor.

a. God– Lord Ramacandra- throws a stone,  it floats because He is God. When you throw a stone, it will drown. When God makes one big planet floating, it floats. You cannot do it.

b. You have no power to evaporate water and make it into a cloud and distribute it. Very easily it is being done. Then why don’t you accept somebody’s doing that? There are oceans and seas. Why you scientist cannot bring the water, make a cloud and pour water? Where is that science? When drops and streams come from your shower you know there is intelligence behind it. When similarly rain comes down from the clouds there is a superhuman intelligence behind it.

c. Anything you do or make, it requires intelligence. Similarly, God’s intelligence invisibly acts in Nature.

d. Just like someone has made a garland of flowers. Somebody intelligent has made this decoration. So who has made the flowers and leaves? Someone made this garland, one red flower, then yellow flower etc, to make it very attractive, but who has made this flower? I am taking the flowers to make it more beautiful by setting them in this way, but who has

made this beautiful flower? Whose brain is there?

You have to accept. Because you are somebody, you are trying to make something more beautiful by setting up the different flowers, so which somebody has made the flower?

e. That is intelligence. There must be some brain. That is philosophy. Philosophy means to search out the ultimate, the Absolute Truth, God, the first cause.

Janmady asya yatah [SB 1.1.1]. Athato brahma jijnasa. That is philosophy. Philosophy is the science of science. Sarva-karana-karanam [Bs. 5.1]. The first science.

5. Atheist:  Say what is God. What do you mean by God?

6. Theist: “God is the force moving the universe,” A child can also see the force. But behind the force, who is there? Whenever there is force, there must be one person forceful, who is forcing. That is God.

7. God exists.

The argument that nature as the Supreme Cause cannot be shown and seen

1. Atheist: Nature has generated everything on its own. Just like theists say that God did it.

2. Theist: Where is that nature, generating everything? Where is that nature? Show me.

3. Atheist: Corn produces the seeds as well as the plant.

4. Theist: Then wherefrom the corn came?

5. Atheist: From itself. You see, we theorize that naturally…

6. Theist: Theorize, theorize. But we see corn is produced when the seeds are thrown on the ground, then corns are produced. Wherefrom is the corn coming. The corn is not dropping from the sky.

7. Atheist: Originally…

8. Theist: You have not seen an original coming by itself.

9. Atheist: Well, originally, we say, it was just some chance combination of atoms and molecules…

10. Theist: Chance means you are a rascal. Nothing takes place with chance. Plastic flowers are made by a person designing and creating. God, similarly, designs and creates the flowers and everything else in the

cosmos from the original subatomic particles.

11. God exists.

The argument on the first cause

1. Atheists often argue that theists are trapped in an infinite regress. They challenge, “If God made everything, who made God?” as if the only answer is a God-maker, who required a God-maker-maker, and so on.  But the argument clings just as much, if not more so, to the atheist. Since nobody can think the universe came from absolutely nothing (i.e., no mass, no energy, no categories, no information, no concepts); since nothing or no-thing does not exist, everybody has to start with an eternal reality – an uncaused cause.  The question then becomes if the eternal reality is personal or impersonal. But why then or how would an impersonal reality ever give rise to personality? We have no experience of such a happening; this has never ever happened. But personalities being productive of persons and impersonal or matter we see only and always. And how would a personal being be able to know it to be true, unless truth also presupposes personal cognition? The personal uncaused cause is therefore a superior starting point.

2. A supreme person who is the uncaused cause of everything is a definition of God.

3. God exists.

The proof of God in every non-human movement of the material world

1. Darwin’s theory begins in the ocean. He says that some fish-type animal climbed out of the ocean and began to breathe the air.

2. Challenge: Then wherefrom the ocean came?

3. “In the beginning on the planet there was great turbulence and the oceans were stirring, and then there was some lightning charge.”

4. Challenge: Wherefrom the lightning came? And wherefrom the ocean came?

5. “It all began from a primeval explosion.”

6. Challenge: Then same question, wherefrom the explosion came?

7. “That explosion began at time zero. Time began then, at time zero. And if you ask the question, “What was before that?” that’s not a logical, sensible question. It’s a question that should not even be asked.”

8. Challenge: You are beginning from zero. How you can begin from zero? Everything comes from nothing then. Space is an infinity of points, so time is an infinity of single instants, with no beginning and end.

9. “It all originates from a giant mass of primordial matter.”

10. Challenge: Then same question comes “Wherefrom the matter comes?”

11. “It’s an accident.”

12. Challenge: Where is the accident? Nothing is accident, everything is cause and effect. In the beginning there was God. That is the beginning. Janmady asya yatah [SB 1.1.1]. Aham evasam agree [SB 2.9.33]. And Bhagavad- gita, aham sarvasya prabhavah mattah sarvam pravartate [Bg. 10.8]. This is proven philosophy. “Everything begins from God.” Now you can say, “Wherefrom God came?” But that is God. God is eternally existing, He is not caused by any other cause, He is the original cause. Anadir adih: “He has no beginning, but He is the beginning of everything.” This is the conception of God. Anadir adir govindah [Bs. 5.1]. That adi is Govinda, person, Krishna. Krishna says, aham adir hi devanam [Bg 10.2]. We find from the history. Brahma -the designer and creator of the material world- is the beginning. He is deva, one of the demigods. Krishna says, aham adir hi devanam. So He is the cause of Brahma also.  This is the only possible philosophy. It doesn’t begin from zero or accident. This is not philosophy. As you eternal soul is the cause of so many bodies and other creations– house, technology, children etc. and are without cause, the first cause, so God is the cause of the Material Cosmic Prison. And He lives Himself beyond that Prison.

13. God and Heaven exist.

The argument of the magician of the hyper quantum mechanics

1. Lawrence M. Krauss is a theoretical physicist and director of the

Origins Project at Arizona State University.

2. In his latest book, he claims to have shown why the latest physics proves that God is not necessary to explain the universe’s existence and features.

3. Krauss claims to demonstrate how quantum gravity not only allows our universe and other universes to pop into existence out of nothing (that is, without the agency of a divine being), but that quantum gravity actually appears to require nothing.

4.  In  the  flyleaf, the  publisher  writes  that  Krauss  has  provided  an “antidote to outmoded philosophical and religious thinking,” and a “game-changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists.”

5. But has Krauss really proven that “God is dead”?

6. His fans may say so, but Krauss himself backs away slightly from such a bold claim. Rather, he admits that “one cannot rule out such a deistic view of nature.” This deistic view “bears no logical connection to the personal deities of the world’s great religions.” In other words, God may not be dead, but, according to Krauss, he certainly is not personal or presently active.

7. One reason why God, if he exists, may not be personal is that the universe appears to add up to nothing.

8. Only in a flat geometry universe (like ours appears to be) does the total “Newtonian gravitational energy” of each cosmic object equal zero. This happens because the negative energy of gravitational attraction cancels out the positive energy of motion. Therefore, the net energy of the universe is zero and if that’s the case, then the universe is essentially nothing. Krauss implies that if the universe really adds up to nothing, why then must we feel compelled to invoke “Someone” (like God) to explain its cause?

9. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite established the spatial curvature of the universe, Ωk, to be between -0.0174 and +0.0051, where 0.0000 represents perfect flatness. Consequently, Krauss does have a strong case for the total Newtonian gravitational energy of the universe being zero or very close to zero. However, there is more to the universe than Newtonian gravitational energy.

10. Imagine someone throwing a shot put straight up in the air, at one point when the shot’s upward kinetic energy exactly equals the downward gravitational energy, although its motion energy is zero, we cannot say the shot put is nothing. It is still a sphere of metal that weighs sixteen pounds.

12. Similarly, though the total Newtonian gravitational energy of the universe is zero, the universe still contains a huge amount of heat left over from the cosmic creation event and enormous quantities of dark energy, exotic dark matter, ordinary dark matter, and visible galaxies, stars, planets, dust, and gas.

Energy movements may be neutralized but we see movements and the substance and its order need a cause. Thus Krauss’s theory is very limited.

13. Further, Krauss proposes that virtual particle production serves as an analogy for how the universe came to exist.

14. Virtual particle production is a natural outcome of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.

15.  The  quantum  fluctuations  in  the  universe’s  space-time  fabric generate particles, provided those particles revert to quantum space-time fluctuations before any human observer can detect their appearance. Since these particles cannot be detected directly, physicists refer to them as virtual particles. Krauss suggests that the entire universe may have popped into existence by the same means.

16. However, on this idea we have to make a note. For a system as massive as the observable universe, the time for it to arise from nothingness (the space-time fabric) and revert back to nothingness (the space-time fabric) must be less than 10^-102 seconds (101 zeroes between the decimal point and 1). Arising, Generating Operating, reverting and Destroying can be only done by G-O-D (Generating-Operating-Destroying) or God doing this magic. The probability of a quantum outcome occurring increases in proportion to the passage of time. That is, the larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum outcome, like the production of a virtual particle, will take place. This principle implies that if the time interval is zero, the probability for any quantum event is zero.

17. The space-time theorems prove that time has a beginning coincident with the beginning of the universe. Thus, the time interval at the beginning of the universe is zero. This eliminates quantum mechanics as a possible candidate for being the natural generator of the universe.

18. Krauss proposes that—in addition to the observable quantum mechanics constrained to space and time—there is an unobserved hyper quantum mechanics that exists beyond our universe. The Vedas call this pradhana (part of the causal ocean) the original stock of matter. Here

some dimension (or dimensions) of time, entirely distinct from cosmic time, would permit space-time bubbles, independent of the space or time dimensionality posited to exist beyond our universe, to pop into existence spontaneously. In the Veda this is done by time (kala) personified – Maha Vishnu.

19. However, if the hyper quantum mechanics is anything like the quantum mechanics we observe, then the space-time bubbles must also disappear spontaneously within extremely brief time episodes.

20. Krauss acknowledges that his appeal to some imagined hyper quantum mechanics to explain the origin of the universe leads to a time episode problem. He suggests that the problem might be solved if the universe experiences a very aggressive inflationary expansion event before the hyper quantum mechanics forced the newly generated space-time bubble (our universe) to disappear.

Only God can do this. Only an engineer expands. There is no proof of another agent.

21. Inflation, the integral part of big bang cosmology, refers to the brief but rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume.

22. For our universe, the inflation epoch lasted between 10-36  and 10-33 seconds. It occurred near the very beginning of the electroweak era, during which three forces of physics existed: gravity, the strong nuclear force, and the electroweak force.

23. The electroweak force is actually a blending of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force. This blending occurs only when the universe is very young and, hence, very hot.

24. However, if the universe is too young, the electroweak force will blend with the strong nuclear force. When our universe was about 10-35 seconds old, the strong-electroweak force separated into the strong nuclear force and the electroweak force.

25. Accordingly, an inflation episode cannot begin in our universe until the universe is 10-35 seconds old. This albeit extremely brief time interval is 1067 times longer than the time duration for a universe like ours to appear and then disappear via the quantum pathway that produces virtual particles. This means it cannot/doesn’t exist anymore before it can start to expand. Thus the theory of Krauss disappears into nothingness.

26. Thus the space-time theorem establishes that in all viable inflationary big bang models the universe is subject to a beginning in finite time. The implication is that they thus require a causal Agent beyond space and time to explain their existence.

27. That causal agent can be only God.

28. God the Supreme Engineer and Magician exists.

The argument of the book –

God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

1. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a 2007 book by the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011) in which he criticizes religion.

2. He hardly breaks a sweat in arguing that God does not exist; nevertheless, he thinks that he has established it as beyond question.

3. For Hitchens’s attack on all gods and religions to be successful, however, he would need to furnish a strong argument denying the supernatural realm. Only then would it follow that all the gods of all the religions would be merely of human design. How a cloud of subatomic particles  floating in  an  area  of  empty  space  combine  and  produce something. Hitchens’s supernatural realm is electricity or thunderbolts, pressures, explosions and magic or chance. But there is no experiment where these have produced anything without an engineer manipulating these. We say supernatural because have you ever seen a cloud in the sky suddenly producing thunder and explosions. Only by interacting with external objects can that happen. But this is not the situation before the Big Bang. There was nothing then particles. And thunderbolts have only caused destruction. There is no happy report of a thunderstruck.

4. Arguments against theism are made in chapters 5 (“The Metaphysical

Claims of Religion Are False”) and 6 (“Arguments from Design”)

In both topics he is thin and shrill; neither demonstrates even the slightest awareness of the philosophical and scientific arguments for the existence of a personal and moral creator and designer of the universe.

Hitchens does not offer any new insights in the debate against religion. Atheist “arguments” regarding religion tend to fall into two categories: actual  logical  arguments  and  whining  about  the  evils  of  religion.

Hitchens’s book falls firmly in the second camp.

He mentions (without attribution) several Christian thinkers to the effect that Christianity is opposed to reason.

For example, Thomas Aquinas who said, “I am a man of one book,” in this way he misleads the unsuspecting reader into thinking that Christianity always pits religious faith against reason. And he doesn’t mention that this book “Summa Theologica” has 4000 pages.

5. Hitchens scavenges around for many bad examples of illogic, ignorance, and outright stupidity in religion. The straw man makes many loud-mouthed appearances in god Is Not Great. He wrote “an agonizingly long laundry list of nasty things done in the name of religion.”

For him, if religious people behave badly, that counts against God. On the other hand, if they behave well, that means nothing because non- religious people can also behave well.

6. He exposes an unsettling new strategy among the “New Atheists”: Forget building sound arguments. Simply accuse, slander, and misrepresent, and do it the loudest and rudest way possible.

7. His constant mocking of religion just because of its history of inhumanity does nothing to counteract the claim of religion defenders, that Jihadists are not true Muslims and that Crusaders were not true Christians.

8. Bizarre attacks on Mother Theresa.

9. True, Christians often have been unchristian and positively immoral; Christians have acted in ways that betray what the Bible teaches.

But, Christianity was at the start and heart of the scientific revolution in

Europe, beginning around the middle of the sixteenth century.

10. Alfred North Whitehead argued that modern science was born in a

Christian cradle.

11. He ignores (or chooses to ignore) the many arguments of modern religious apologists; there is no mention of any of these.

12. It also just begs for a theist to write a counter-”argument”-- a list of nasty things done in the name of money, greed, power, etc.

13. Hitchens doesn’t really make any arguments. He instead gives numerous anecdotes about religious people engaging in selfish, violent, perverse,  and  ignorant  behaviour. There’s  no  question  that  religious people often fail to live good lives, but this in itself doesn’t amount to an argument against religion as such, anymore than similar examples of

atheists behaving badly would amount to an argument against atheism. Both atheists and believers are sometimes noble and sometimes base.

14. Hitchens argues that religion “poisons everything,” but a strong historical case can be made that Christianity in particular has motivated a host of beneficial movements in history.

Some errors in the book

15. “Jews borrowed and plagiarized Hanukah from the Christians.”

15 a. Not correct, Hanukah occurred 160 years before Jesus was born.

16. Hitchens says that Spinoza’s body was stolen after his death and desecrated by his tribe members (the Jews).

16a. Again, an invention; Spinoza was buried in the churchyard of the

Nieuwe Kerk on Spui in The Hague.

17. He rejects the Old Testament as having been disproved by revisionist archaeology.

17a. These conclusions are far from self-evident, as opposing scholars have noted.

18. He invokes Hume’s famous critique of miracles.

18 a. He is not aware that this argument has fallen on very hard times in contemporary philosophy.

19. He really lacks a good scholarship of philosophy, history and science and gentleness.

20. Hitchens ridicules the argument from design more than he rationally challenges it. He uses the standard argument that nature manifests too many defects to be designed.

21. He claims, e.g., that the human eye is inefficiently designed and ineptly fashioned, although the stock argument for this is false. Religionists counter that this world is the prison house for the rebel souls of paradise, as Adam and Eve were put out of the Garden of Eden. The prison house is to be limited, defective and miserable. The gates/bars of the prison house (the senses) give limited view. Nor we find inside the prison luxurious, luscious, heavenly gardens. Similarly the eye is defective, limited and views the world of misery.

22. William Dembski argues that if something in nature cannot be accounted for on the basis of chance and/or natural law, then the best explanation for its basic structure is design—that is, intelligent causation.

23. The complex and specified informational patterns in DNA cannot be

the result of natural laws because they are too complicated; nor can their specificity be explained by chance combinations because these are too improbable.

24. The best explanation for this genetic language, therefore, is a designer.

25. ID theorists conclude that design inference proves all of the important attributes of God, and their arguments spell trouble for naturalism, which attempts to account for everything in nature on the basis of impersonal chance and necessity. Although there is no proof or experiment that a pile of particles left in open air under nature’s sky will ever start to do something, nor will ever start exploding, create thunderbolts and these acting back on themselves will develop themselves into a mango tree.

26. Hitchens hymns the praises of the knowledge gained from the Human Genome Project, but he doesn’t mention what he surely knows--that the project’s leader, Francis Collins, has made his Christian commitment quite public.

27. Nature, according to atheism, was not created or designed by a rational Mind. To atheists, mindless matter precedes the appearance of minds. However, no laboratory experiment has been done, proving that matter on its own, without a human mind involved, can evolve to E-coli’s, then to fishes, reptiles, monkeys, 7 billion humans.

28. Criticizing bad examples of people of various religions does not disprove religions are bad especially not because of God who in the scriptures gives very high standard to be attained – a saintly behaviour.

29. Not mentioning at all and not refuting in his book the various arguments for God’s existence weakens his case against religion and God.

30. Despite his greatest will, he could not establish that God does not exist.

31. God exists.

The argument of transposons vs.

‘Selfish genes’ of Dawkins

1.  In 1976, evolutionist Richard Dawkins described[1] how he thought life on earth was characterized by selfish genes competing for propagation within the genomes of countless creatures.

2. Since then, science has discovered the unique segments of DNA called transposons able to insert copies of themselves into plant and animal

DNA. Are transposons trying to take over their host genomes, thus demonstrating the selfish behavior described by Dawkins? The answer is “no.”

3. Transposons don’t just randomly invade a genome but insert copies of themselves into very specific places on chromosomes.

4. The best-studied transposons are the “P elements” found in fruit flies. A recent study of P elements published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences appears to have discovered the source of the “highly nonrandom selectivity of P element insertion.”[2]

5. What many P insertion sites share in common is an ability to function as starting sites or “origins” for DNA duplication. This association between P elements and the machinery of genome duplication suggested that they can coordinate their movement with DNA replication.[3]

6. Evolutionists have been trying to work transposons into an overall evolutionary scheme of genetic development. They were curious “Does a selfish drive to increase copy number by replication timing influence the evolution of genome organization?”[2]

7. First, transposons target specific sites. If they were truly “selfish,” they should show no preference for location.

8. Because transposons serve a very particular purpose, inserting themselves into specific DNA sites for a biologically significant reason, they must have been designed and created.

9. The transposons’ copy numbers are controlled and eventually stopped by inherited cellular mechanisms that seem to “understand” exactly what the transposon is doing.

10. If the transposon is selfishly competing with the genome in order to survive and reproduce, as Dawkins described, then why does the transposon interact with its host genome in a cooperative manner that fits like a hand in a glove?

11. Additionally, most genes on earth are plant genes that serve largely selfless roles,[4] and also “jumping genes” (DNA sequences that move from one location on the genome to another) do not exhibit signs of selfishness.

12. Genes do not struggle against one another, but at almost every level have been found to mesh with coordinated, well-planned precision to perform tasks that serve their larger organisms.

13. Such a behaviour could only have resulted from deliberate engineering by a superior Designer who designed all the minute details of DNA on the nanoscopic level.

14. This could have been possible only for God.

15. The cell is like a micro-state or -metropolis.

As an ideal perfect state as Ramaraja in India or any peaceful god-loving society or any good working civilization or metropolis is designed by a creator, the cell is created by God.

16. God exists

References

1. Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Spradling, A. C., H. J. Bellen and R. A. Hoskins. Drosophila P elements preferentially transpose to

replication origins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print September 6, 2011.

3. A “Jumping Gene’s” preferred targets may influence genome evolution. Carnegie Institution for Science news release, September 6, 2011.

4. Demick, D.. 2000. The Unselfish Green Gene. Acts & Facts. 29 (7).

The argument of answers to “The God Delusion”

by Richard Dawkins (1)

1. The infinite regress of Dawkins. Dawkins reasons that if God were an explanation for the existence of our complex universe then God would be an even more complex and improbable entity, which moreover would need an even bigger explanation for its existence.

1a. Plantinga notes in his review of the book this argument is so primitive that it would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class, because Aristotle already refuted “regress ad infinitum” in his “On the motion of animals.” He gives the example of a mouse trying to climb a mountain of grains or sand. It has no solid substrate so it will not get up. If there is no first cause, the chain of further causes and effects has no standing and will not take place.

1b. Infinite regression of finite causes does not answer the question of source; it merely makes the effects more numerous.

1c. Thus, the only philosophically plausible possibility that remains is that the universe was made by an unmade Cause greater than itself.

2. Dawkins discusses the so-called anthropic principle, which states that reality must be such as to produce any phenomenon we now observe, and specifically must be such as to produce humans like us.

3. Dawkins notes that theists claim that the answer is some supernatural action by God which started life on Earth. So his best alternative answer on behalf of all the atheists is – the anthropic principle.

4. Even if for the sake of argument we accept this argument, the anthropic principle is personalized, namely it is able to plan details about creation, create laws, control the process of creation etc. So it seems that the

‘anthropic principle’ is the name of God for atheists. The same God accepted by all religions.

5. On the page 136, Dawkins writes: “The great majority of planets in the universe are ... not suitable for life. ... However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions for life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.” So, from the premise that life can evolve by itself (i.e. on naturalistic grounds) given the right planet it follows that our planet has had these right conditions. But of course whether life can or can’t evolve by itself on *any* planet is the very question under discussion, so here - again - Dawkins begs the question.

6. The fine-tuning of the fundamental physical constants of the universe is also not sufficiently dealt with by Dawkins.

7. If these constants (e.g. the value of the strong force) were even a little off then life as we know it could not evolve, so theists argue that this evidences God’s design.

8. Dawkins fails to mention how fine the fine-tuning is: if the combination of physical constants were off only 1 part in 10^100 then life would not have evolved.

9. On the page 145 he again mentions his newly named God, writing: “Once again, the anthropic principle does its explanatory duty”.

9a. If something cannot be explained in naturalism the anthropic principle is the one who always does its miraculous duty. This explanation is the last resort.

10. Fine-tuning as nowadays is to an incredible degree. It cannot be ruled

out. There is no better explanation for it, then that a designer developed it.

11. Here are three examples of fine-tuning of the galaxy-sun-earth-moon system.

Gravitational interaction with a moon

- If greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe.

- If less: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient; magnetic field would be too weak.

Jupiter distance

- If greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth.

- If less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable. Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere

- If larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.

- If smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly.

12. Considering all the different points God the Super-intelligent Designer exists.

Argument from the god delusion answered

1. Alister McGrath, a fellow Oxford professor with Richard Dawkins conjointly wife his wife Johanna Collicut McGrath wrote an answer to Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Their book is titled “The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist  Fundamentalism  and  the  Denial  of  the  Divine.” Alister McGrath, once an atheist himself, earned his doctorate in molecular biophysics. After becoming convinced of God, and converting to Christianity, McGrath went on to study theology. As a trained scientist, respected theologian, and Oxford fellow, McGrath is well-positioned to respond to Dawkins’ bold claims.

2. He takes arguments that Dawkin’s makes to support HIS theory (there is no God, religion is evil) and tests them against what is known.

3. He finds Dawkin’s argument’s lacking depth, with several obvious “claims” to be shown as nothing more than simple opinion– faith- based on some belief on judging observations.

4. McGraths’ in his book does not refute every one of Dawkins’ contentions

but rather responds selectively to a few of his points.

4a. Elaborating why faith is not irrational nonsense, as Dawkins contends in many derisive statements, McGraths also addresses Dawkins’ improbability argument pointing out, correctly, that 1) complexity is not an argument for improbability and that 2) improbability is not a valid argument for non-existence.

4b. Science and faith are not incompatible, as Dawkins seems to think. According to Dawkins, evolution makes God unnecessary and thus, out. Stephen Jay Gould (America’s best known evolutionist who was also an atheist) disagreed, noting the great number of evolutionary biologists who believe in God, in this excerpt from The Rock of Ages cited by the McGraths (page 34): “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism.”

4c. Dawkins’ description of the evolutionary roots of religion are suspect. He opines that religious impulses have biological roots and are largely psychological in nature. However, McGraths point out that questions of the origin of religion are unsettled in the field of psychology, a field in which Dawkins is not trained and has limited expertise. And Dawkins is definitely not a religion scientist or theologian. He behaves too often like a biology student who wants to teach Martin Luther theology when he speaks about God. And if a theistic or atheistic mind is the result of Random Just So Unexplainable movements of sub-atoms, one is not more probable then the other, nor better or worse than the other.

4d. Dawkins’ contention that religion is evil is simplistic, and the evidence he uses is highly selective.

-- on this point McGraths argues that an even stronger case can be made for the benefits of religion historically in the world.

5. McGraths view is that The God Delusion lacks analytical rigor, and instead  relies  heavily  upon  rhetoric. As  such,  Dawkins’ book  is  an atheistic-fundamentalist polemic/ Bible. One of their criticisms is that “One of the most characteristic features of Dawkins’s antireligious polemic is to present the pathological as if it were normal, the fringe as if it were the centre, crackpots as if they were mainstream.”

5a. The McGraths write that “Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric

and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking. Curiously, there is surprisingly little scientific analysis in The God Delusion.”

6. Are there many fans of Dawkins? According to a survey 40 % nature scientists in the USA believe in a God who resembles the God of Christian belief, and 20 % are agnostics. Of the rest only a few will be followers of Dawkins.

7. Others have written in response to Dawkins’ The God Delusion as well, such as David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions,  John  Cornwell’s  Darwin’s Angel: A Seraphic Response to the God Delusion, and Eric Reitan’s Is God A Delusion: A Reply to Religion’s Cultured Despisers.

- The Devil’s Delusion - David Berlinski, himself a secular Jew, delivers a biting defense of religious thought. In brief, Berlinski’s argument boils down to three main points:

a. there is nothing in science proper that undermines religion (a point that used to be widely recognized and even extolled by writers like SJ Gould), b. most of the new atheists badly misunderstand even the most rudimentary arguments of theology and are not logically consistent, and finally that

c. much of science has become rather dogmatic, like a new religion. Berlinski does an excellent job addressing all three of these points, the first of which should be more or less self evident. Claims, for example, that one “should” only believe in physical or visible evidence are not, in and of themselves, empirical claims. Indeed, I have friends who resolutely insist that materialism is “all there is” while remaining blissfully unaware of the fact that such a statement could not arise from strictly empirical observation.

-- Is God A Delusion - Eric Reitan, a Professor of Philosophy at Oklahoma State University, specializes in ethics (especially non-violence theory) and the philosophy of religion, is an award-winning writer and scholar.

a. Reitan argues that the moral attacks made on religion by contemporary atheists, is not an attack on religion but on its corruption.

b. In chapter 9 of his book, Reitan confronts the problem of evil, admitting that, while there are insights to be gained from many of the classical Christian theodicy’s, none has really solved the problem. But he argues, persuasively, that this fact is no more sufficient to make faith in

a good God irrational than the fact that biologists have not solved certain problems facing the theory of evolution makes it irrational to continue to believe in that theory.

8. Thus the evolution theory presented by Dawkins as the only true way to look at things is nothing but a new faith trying to explain how nature came into being and how it developed. It is an atheist Bible only and nothing more.

9. Thus, many respected scientists disagree with evolution theory and still accept a Divine Deity as the ultimate cause of all existence we observe.

10. God exists.

The argument of the last possible explanation

1. In his book God Delusion (GD), Richard Dawkins makes arguments in ethics, philosophy, history, and theology but hardly any science.

2. GD claims to show how belief in God is wrong, yet the majority of the book is concerned with the ethical conduct of religion and religion’s moral worth, not whether God exists.

3. Dawkins dismisses the arguments of the Intelligent Design movement (ID) as “lazy” and based on ignorance. Invoking a designing intelligence to explain something like the sophisticated bacterial flagellum is a science stopper, namely, to say “God did it” ends scientific explanation.

4. However, Dawkins’s critique of Michael Behe’s argument based on the flagellum and other biological systems misses the mark.

5. Michael Behe argues that the flagellum is “irreducibly complex.” This means that all the approximately forty proteins parts need to be in place for the motor to work at all.

6. The flagellum (and many other biological functions) fails to fit Darwin’s demand that evolution be slow and gradual.

7. Dawkins simply affirms that there must be a materialistic explanation for the flagellum. He does note that another biological system--the Type III  Secretor  System--contains  ten  of  the  flagellum’s forty  parts  and announces that this refutes Behe, since this less complex system had to have been an ancestor to the flagellum.

8. This is called the co-option theory, and it is woefully inadequate, since it leaves thirty parts of the flagellum unexplained, as well as the detailed

DNA assembly instructions which are required for the flagellum to be put together properly in the correct sequence.

9. Dawkins also errs by saying that Behe’s theory claims that none of the approximately forty necessary parts of the flagellum can be found in other working systems. Since ten are found in another system, Behe is refuted.

10. But Behe never made the claim that other parts could not be found in other organisms. Rather, he said that all forty parts of the bacterial flagellum are required for its motor function and that this function could not be built up by Darwinism’s “slight, successive variation.”

11a. Thus Behe’s inference to design is not “lazy” or a “science stopper” nor is it based on ignorance. It is based on vastly increased knowledge of the workings within the cell that has come about in the last several decades.

11b. Theistic science doesn’t stop science. With God we enter the realm of the Unlimited so science is unlimited.

12. If there are no evolutionary explanations for designs and complexities found in different researches and the last possible and reasonable explanation of intelligent design is rejected that is not real science.

13. Therefore, God exists.

The argument of the Ultimate Boeing 747

1. Richard Dawkins in his book God Delusion turns around the famous example of the ‘The Boeing 747’ first used by Fred Hoyle against the probability of life spontaneously assembling itself on the primordial earth.

2. This is the example: “It is improbable that a tornado, sweeping through a junkyard, would ever assemble a working Boeing 747 airliner.”

3. Dawkins tries to say that just as the Boeing 747 is designed and has therefore a designer so also God who shows design had a designer. Briefly in syllogism:

a. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.

b. God shows evidence of design in himself.

c. Hence God requires a designer (another God) superior to himself.

4a. Now, here is the argument of Dawkins how it actually works against himself; What is the cause of the Big Bang, the energy movements turning into order, the subatomic particles whirled into structures, the quantum wave function or quantum vacuum. If these have a cause, what is their cause.

4b. Aristotle already defeated this infinite regress. As a mouse cannot climb a hill of grains since there is no basis or support to take off from.

5. Thus the syllogism should be like this:

a. Every existing entity that shows evidence of design requires a designer superior to itself.

b. The universe(s) show evidence of design.

c. Infinite regressions are not possible because then no universes come into existence.

d. The first cause was an Intelligent Designer.

Infinite regressions are paradoxical to reality, simply not true. Thus the whole argument of Dawkins falls flat because ‘infinite regressions’ are not possible. There would be no first cause and so nothing would happen ever without a first mover and controller, God.

6. God, the first cause of all causes, exists.

The argument of Hume versus

Darwin in God Delusion by Dawkins

1. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume (1779)

presented a number of objections to the design argument.

2a. In particular, he criticized the argument on the grounds that it depends on a dubious analogy, that it is a flawed inductive argument since it is based on the evidence of a single universe, and that it does not establish the characteristics of the designer.

2b. The universe does reveal the designer’s qualities. But Hume has to learn some basic ABCD. We are spirit souls, imprisoned in a material body. The material world has many prison cells and is thus a big prison. Outside the prison there is a palace and the king. As in Ramaraja the king should be fully rich, powerful, loving, beautiful, knowledgeable etc. These are the qualities of the Ultimate Designer or God, Krishna.

2c. On Hume’s “based on the evidence of a single universe” as mentioned

above in 2a we know that for this universe, of this Big Bang, causing

10^23 planets circling as a huge clock, that it is caused by God. Clock works are created and kept going by a clock maker and his design. The other universes work on the same principles.

3a. He also raised the objection that if an explanation is required to account for the order in the universe, an explanation would also be required to account for the order in the mind of the designer. Hume’s character Philo claims that “… a mental world or universe of ideas requires a cause as much as does a material world or universe of objects, and, if similar in its arrangement, must require a similar cause.” (Hume 1779, p. 33)

3b. This argument is already answered by Aristotle. There must be a first cause just as the mouse can’t climb a hill of sand since there is nothing fixed. Without a first cause the chain of causes and effects has no starting point.

4. The Darwinian response to design is not satisfied with the philosophical arguments of Hume, but is only confident in rejecting design when a scientific explanation of the order in question is in place. The philosopher of science Elliott Sober contrasts the two approaches as follows:

a. “Philosophers who now criticize the organistic design argument often believe that the argument was dealt its death blow by Hume. … the design argument after Hume was merely a corpse that could be propped up and paraded. Hume had taken the life out if it.”

b. “Biologists often take a different view. For them, Hume’s sceptical attack was not the decisive moment; rather, it was Darwin’s development and confirmation of a substantive scientific explanation of the adaptive features of organisms that really undermined the design argument (at least in its organistic formulation). Philosophers who believe that a theory can’t be rejected until a better theory is developed to take its place often sympathize with this point of view.” (Sober 2004, p. 15)

5. Dawkins espouses the Darwinian response, but in reality he seems to favour Humean responses. In fact, his main argument against design closely follows Hume’s concerning the need for an explanation of the mind of the designer.

6. The arguments of Dawkins against design can be briefly summarized like this:

Argument 1: Who designed the designer

a. It is extremely improbable that organized complexity should exist unexplained.

b. If God exists, he must have organized complexity, the very same property we want to explain, only more so. And so,

c. God’s organized complexity would be even more in need of explanation than that found in nature. (Or equivalently, according to Dawkins, God is not a good ultimate explanation of organized complexity in nature.)

7. The answer for Dawkins is that the mind of the Designer is eternal and uncreated as Dawkins claims that subatomic particles, the cause of the Big Bang, chance, energy, mass etc. are eternal. The cause of chance, the anthropic principle, evolution drive, natural selection etc. etc in other words, the organizers of the molecules, flora and fauna are also unexplained. Then who is right? Our experience in human society is that only persons, consciousness create or manufacture. Impersonal forces and creators don’t exist.

8. Argument 2: Darwinian argument

a. The design argument depends on the claim that “nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed.”

b. Darwinism explains apparent design in the living world and so shows that the claim noted in point a is false.

c. Thus the design argument is flawed and hence provides no basis for belief in God.

Dawkins writes:

“Creationist ‘logic’ is always the same. Some natural phenomenon is too statistically improbable, too complex, too beautiful, too awe-inspiring to have come into existence by chance. Design is the only alternative to chance that the authors can imagine. Therefore a designer must have done it. And science’s answer to this faulty logic is always the same. Design is not the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative.” (Dawkins 2006, p. 121)

9. Then he must answer: Who is selecting. Why there is selection. Why species came. Why proteins came. Why thunderbolts came. Why a Big Bang happened.

Don’t we see in human society that selection, cross breeding, synthesizing, fireworks, explosions are caused by intelligent design? Isn’t it therefore logical to extrapolate this to Nature. There is no evidence of other

designers.

10.   So does Darwinian explanations undermine the design theory of organized complexity?

Setting aside the Humean arguments for the moment, we are left only with two possibilities to explain organized complexity, design or Darwinism. Anyone of the two if true will exclude the other.

11. Analyzing Darwinian arguments. Given the laws of physics and the initial state of the early universe, does Darwinism give a sufficiently good account of organized complexity to make design unnecessary? It is not at all obvious that it does. There are a number of hurdles that suggest the probability of complex life arising in the universe is very low even when Darwinism is taken into account.

12. Even Dawkins acknowledges that certain steps in the development of complex life are statistically improbable. He refers to the “initial stroke of luck” in the origin of life and goes on to say that “it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified.”

13. He mentions two more obstacles:

a. Mark Ridley … has suggested that the origin of the eukaryotic cell … was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life.

b. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was the same order of improbability. (Dawkins 2006, p. 140)

14. Darwinism cannot undermine design in the context of fine-tuning, for example, without giving an explanation of fine-tuning.

15. It is instructive to consider Dawkins’ response to the fine-tuning argument. Dawkins also appeals to a multiverse to account for fine-tuning and addresses the claim that this is no more satisfactory than design as follows:

“People who think that have not had their consciousness raised by natural selection. The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain.” (Dawkins 2006, pp. 146-147).

16.  Here  Dawkins  appeals  to  natural  selection  as  a  consciousness- raiser, but he is not content to rest his case on the Darwinian response. He appears not to be entirely convinced of the alternative multiverse explanation in this case, but nevertheless thinks it is to be preferred to design. Dawkins has reverted to his Humean arguments by claiming that God is too improbable to be a satisfactory explanation. But Big Bang, natural selection, chance and so on are impossible as agents for creation. There is no proof. But humans make plastic Christmas trees, artificial flowers, plastic apples or fruits, window dummies, robots, planetaria. These are never made by a pile of plastic or metal molecules under nature’s open sky.

17. Analyzing Humean arguments

The Humean arguments used by Dawkins are not scientific but philosophical in nature. He writes: “It is extremely improbable that organized complexity should exist unexplained”.

18. Dawkins wants to say that to prove the existence of God it would be necessary to explain His complexity. The argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. (Dawkins

2006, p. 114) From this statement and the claim that God possesses organized complexity, it only follows that God is highly unlikely to have arisen by chance.

19. This argument is missing out an important fact of the nature of spirit and matter namely, that spirit, as opposed to the nature of matter, is eternal, what means it has neither beginning nor end. God is not created.

20. Further, explanations of God’s nature and complexity do actually exist in the Vedas. He is hardly comparable to anything material in our experience.

21. The necessity of God as the first cause cannot be really argued; without Him nothing would happen ever. He is the first and eternal existence and the mover of all inanimate objects, to begin with, the ingredients for creation, just like for example without a driver and the locomotive all the wagons of a train pushed by a locomotive would not get anywhere.

22. The premise of Dawkins is: If God exists, he must have organized complexity, the very same property we want to explain, only more so.

23. On this he writes:

“A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual

status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple.” (Dawkins 2006, p. 149)

“God may not have a brain made of neurons, or a CPU made of silicon, but if he has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more elaborately and non-randomly constructed than the largest brain or the largest computer we know.” (Dawkins 2006, p. 154)

24. This description is in agreement with the Vedic view. All ideas of other complexities and order outside of Him are born from His mind, intelligence and consciousness. Nothing that any living being has made was created without mind, intelligence, consciousness. So only God can create complex molecules, universes, planets, which humans nor nature can make.

25. Dawkins has provided no good reasons for stating that God would have the kind of organized created complexity found in the natural world. God’s complexity is irreducible, spiritual and an eternal state. Both his Humean and Darwinian arguments are a failure. He is in delusion about God.

26. God exists, beyond the material deluding energy.

The argument of The Grand Design – a book by Hawking:

`New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of life.’

1. On page 10 Hawking writes: “This is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. We shall attempt to answer it in this book.”

2. Surprisingly, on page 171 Hawking tells us: “The laws of nature tell us

`how’ the universe behaves, but they don’t answer the `why?’ questions that we posed at the start of this book.”

3a. If science cannot provide the ultimate answers, and if `philosophy is dead’ as he opines, what other discipline does Hawking know of, which will explain the ultimate questions?

3b. That “philosophy is dead” is a foolish, ignorant statement. So, the logic goes as follows: because philosophy’s traditional explanations of the physical world have been superseded by physics, all of philosophy is dead. But this obviously makes no sense. Nothing in modern physics replaces philosophical theories of ethics or political philosophy. Or, for  that  matter,  nothing  in  modern  physics  makes  superfluous the

methodological discussions of the philosophy of science. In fact, much of his book is really not a work of popular physics, but rather an argument for a particular philosophical approach to theoretical physics, which Hawking didn’t manage to proof.

4. There are some other fundamental failures in Hawking’s book.

5. Something from nothing?

Quote (p.8): “M-theory (see footnote 1) predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.”

5a. Where does this physical law come from- who made the law. Where is the `science’ that predicts universes emerging from nothing? Have you ever seen “laws” doing something. The law ”Red light means stop” is made by the government, they put up the system of roads and traffic lights, it is taught by teachers in school etc. to be followed, and there are camera’s, police, and a ministry of justice to enforce it.

6. Hawking writes: On page 136: “On this view the universe appeared spontaneously, starting in every possible way.”

On Page 137, the caption to an illustration: “Multiverse Quantum fluctuations lead to the creation of tiny universes out of nothing.”

On Page 180: “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in chapter 6 - Choosing Our Universe.

Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

6a. We answer: Hawking has said absolutely nothing that proves that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” To say that something comes out of nothing, that there is no material cause is simply a statement of faith and doesn’t meet the needs of science and philosophy. Nor is there a need for science; things just happen, anything can happen. Total, Absolute Anarchy on all levels is the only law, even now. No need to describe or fix anything, everything can change any moment.

Even in society or personal relations; the particles can start doing anything, causing love or hate or anything. There is no rule, responsibility, morality

and shelter. THIS IS NOT SO; “Multiple Quantum fluctuations” in the soup on my stove are caused by the cook.

6b. The Eastern Wisdom further replies, “If it is the nature of reality that something arises from nothing, then this process should be visible today. But we see that all effects have a material cause. And, if something can come out of nothing, then it would logically follow that anything could come out of anything -- a human being could hatch from a hen’s egg or a woman could give birth to a chicken. But we observe that creation follows the rule known in Vedic logic as satkaryavada: like cause, like effect. By this rule, nothing must come from nothing, and something specific must come from something specific.”

7. Who and what and why are we?

Hawking dismisses any possibility that mankind is “More than Matter.” On page 181, in the last paragraph of the book, Hawking says: “We human beings ... are ourselves mere collections of fundamental particles of nature.”

7a. We reply: Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist at the Emory University Medical School, undertook a scientific study of out-of-body and near-death experiences. The results of his study detailed in his book Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation (1982), convinced him of the reality of out-of-body experiences. He concluded that the mind was an entity distinct from the brain and that the near-death crisis caused the mind and brain to split apart for a brief time. Sabom wrote, “Could the mind which splits apart from the physical brain be, in essence, the soul, which continues to exist after the final bodily death, according to some religious doctrines? As I see it, this is the ultimate question that has been raised by reports of the NDE [near-death experience].”

7b. All organisms are alive only because of the soul dwelling within it. Occurrences documented by medical practitioners suggest its validity. In his book Light and Death, cardiologist Dr. Michael Sabom reports the surgery of Pam Reynolds, a patient suffering from an aneurysm (a sack- like widening of an artery) in her brain stem that was on the verge of rupture, which could be fatal. Since the aneurysm was at the base of Pam’s brain, her surgeon, Dr. Robert Spetzler, director of Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, had to drain all the blood from her brain to flatten the brainwaves and stop her heartbeat and breathing. Pam was clinically dead during the surgery. After the successful operation, however, she could recollect exact conversations among the surgeons and accurate descriptions of medical instruments (only uncovered after the patient is anaesthetized) used in her surgery, during which she was supposed to be unconscious. During the operation, Pam could see her body from above; she was floating outside her body, so to speak. This and several other documented near-death and out-of-body accounts suggest the existence of the soul, the spirit particle, as a metaphysical being that is the actual source of consciousness.

7c. Quantum theory scientists speak about observer. This is also described in the Srimad Bhagavatam 7.7.22: “The Lord’s eight separated material energies, the three modes of material nature and the sixteen transformations [the eleven senses and the five gross material elements like earth and water]—within all these, the one spiritual soul exists as the observer.”

We cannot speak about an observer of the body if the observer is not beyond the material dimension and is having consciousness. Knowing of the reincarnation of such a conscious observer it can be concluded that its quality is superior to the material elements because it continues to exist even after the death and destruction of the material body. This is the description of the soul that reincarnates life after life accepting different material bodies as proven by the research of Ian Stevenson who examined more than 3000 cases of children who remembered their past life’s activities, where they lived etc.

7d. It is only because of the influence of the soul that a material body can grow. “From the spirit soul, the material energy comes out. Take for example one lemon tree. It is a living entity, and it is producing many gallons of citric acid from the lemons. You take fifty lemons today, again you can take fifty lemons tomorrow, and if you extract the lemons, you’ll find a big quantity of citric acid. Wherefrom the citric acid chemicals come? Because the soul is there in the tree. Therefore the conclusion should be that the chemicals come from life; life does not come from chemical.”

7e. That we are only mere collections of fundamental particles of nature and nothing else cannot be accepted as a verified, good standing theory, rather it is just a totally unfounded declaration of faith in materialism

which, like `self-creation out of nothing’, Hawking cannot support by any proof. He has to show that from a field of fundamental particles, without external forces, just as in the initial state of the cosmos, a crowd of people can come.

8. What of free will?

Stephen Hawking, insists that human beings are biological robots with no consciousness, no free will, no minds and no spirit. On pages 32/33 (repeated on page 178) he makes the astonishing claim that human beings have no free will:

“It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion” (p. 32).

8a. Not only Hawking but other scientists are pushing this idea that feelings and thoughts are mere “biological ricochets” of brain chemistry, lacking any spirit, intention or consciousness.

8b. The statement that there is no free will is a wrong theory since everybody’s experience is to be the witness/ spectator/observer of the body, mind, consciousness and the content of these. One sees desires, feelings, thoughts coming and being transcendental visionary of these, one can decide to flow/go along or resist and do something else. And, all living beings are making choices every moment of their life and to choose between a, b, c or d is free will. For example, someone is sitting reading. If he likes, he can get up and go away, do something else. That’s his free will. There is free will.

8c. For Hawking, humans are inescapably governed, “we would need a knowledge of the initial state of each of the thousand trillion trillion molecules in the human body and to solve something like that number of [mathematical] equations. That would take a few billion years ... [but] because it is so impractical to use the underlying physical laws to predict human behaviour, we adopt what is called an effective theory, based on the notion of free will plus the assumption that people evaluate their possible alternative courses of action and choose the best.”

This is similar to the ‘‘Argument from primate stenography.’

Take the obvious order one sees in the works of William Shakespeare, or of Sir Hawking.

No rational person’s response to seeing the works of Shakespeare or Hawking would be something like: “Oh, there must be a lot of monkeys somewhere who typed all this by pure dumb luck.”

Obviously, then, the order in the universe didn’t come about in a way similar to this. A rational person knows that the order in the universe came from an intelligent creator, not that it came about by accident.

The agents of the forces of Big Bang and evolution, namely “Chance”, “Generation”, “Miracle Doing of the Grand Void” need Someone to Orchestrate, an Administrator, Operator, Someone pushing the processes so that the cosmic order comes about.

Another feeling arising here from The Original Quantum Oscillations is that Hawking by his own words is some package of particles or evolved monkey. The Indescribable Unpredictable Void has decided to bring out a godly delusion– what is the value, anything could have come out. The Darkness may change some atoms in him and turn him into an angel. Who can feel offended from this comparison, that feeling offended is just some atoms and it was not the nonexistent free will of the writer to state this; The Only Cause was The Supreme Quantum Field doing as It pleases.

8d. The masters of Vedic wisdom have also told that we are not as free as we think ourselves to be. Association with matter influences the consciousness in such a way that our behaviour becomes habitual, automatic or reactionary—even though we each think that we act according to our own free will. The modes, or gunas, or as Hawking calls them, the physical laws, influence the behaviour of people. According to their association with the modes of nature they become conditioned to a particular way of understanding and thinking. The freedom of the soul is only in the human form of life, for one who has spiritual knowledge; then one can choose under which modes one wants to function.

9. As there are laws in the government, made by lawmakers, so the material laws of nature were made by a person, God, who moved the quantum particles to build the material world.

10. God exists. Notes:

1. M-theory is a theory in physics that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory that attempts to explain all of the particles and fundamental  forces  of  nature  in  one  theory  by  modelling  them  as

vibrations of tiny super-symmetric strings.

The Argument from Design

Or The Classical Teleological Argument

1. Whenever there are things that cohere only because of a purpose or function (for example, all the complicated parts of a watch that allow it to keep time), we know that they had a designer who de- signed them with the function in mind; they are too improbable to have arisen by random physical processes. (A hurricane blowing through a hardware store could not assemble a watch.)

2. Organs of living things, such as the eye and the heart, cohere only because they have a function (for example, the eye has a cornea, lens, retina, iris, eyelids, and so on, which are found in the same organ only because together they make it possible for the animal to see).

3. These organs must have a designer who designed them with their function in mind: just as a watch implies a watchmaker, an eye implies an eye-maker (from 1 and 2).

4a. These things have not had a human designer.

4b. Some may argue that proto forms replicated themselves but to replicate is to design. The first one to replicate needs an eternal designer– the soul or super-soul, god. Alternatively, there must be a first one to replicate– that is God. In other words, if there is a system which replicates that begs the question, because how that system came into being? Just by itself? In nowadays genetics it is very well known how complex is the replication system and even one small part taken away from a replication system will result in failure of the system. Only an intelligent being could create such a complex replication system and not dull matter without thinking, feeling, willing.

5. Therefore, these things must have had a non-human designer (from 3 and 4).

6. God is the non-human designer (from 5). God the creator of the primeval replications system exists.

7. God exists.

The Argument from the Paucity of Benign Mutations.

1. Evolution is powered by random mutations and natural selection.

2. Organisms are complex, improbable systems, and by the laws of probability any change is astronomically more likely to be for the worse than for the better.

3. The majority of mutations would be deadly for the organism (from 2).

4. The amount of time it would take for all the benign mutations needed for the assembly of an organ to appear by chance is preposterously (contrary to reason, absurd, outrageous) long (from 3).

5. In order for evolution to work, something outside of evolution had to bias the process of mutation, increasing the number of benign ones (from 4).

6. Something outside of the mechanism of biological change—the First to Mutate—must bias the process of mutations for evolution to work (from 5).

7. The only entity that is both powerful enough and purposeful enough to be the First to Mutate is God.

7a. Darwinists theorize that mutations can have small effects (tissue that is slightly more transparent, or cells that are slightly more sensitive to light), and mutations contributing to these effects can accumulate over time; that the necessary mutations do not have to have occurred one after another in a single line of descendants, but could have appeared independently in thousands of separate organisms, each mutating at random, and the necessary combinations could come together as the organisms met and exchanged genes; life on Earth has had a vast amount of time to accumulate the necessary mutations.

7b. We counter that you cannot show anything within your experience which has come about by chance. You cannot find anything by chance.

8. One can try to counter, “so many things in nature are by chance.”

8a. We answer “not yet, go to nature – you don’t understand Her powers.” Just analyze all the human/animal/plant artefacts, and then we must conclude that this chance theory is simply foolish.

9. What about gambling? Somebody wins, somebody looses.

9a. We answer “that is not chance.”

You don’t know which forces give our muscles the exact power to loose or win as we don’t control our digestion, heart beat, immune system,

brain processes.

But these are exactly controlled as are the processes in our computers, factories, medical machines, cars, heating systems, airplanes.

You don’t know therefore you say “chance” and want to cover your ignorance by this chance theory. You want to become very intelligent by chance.

10. Wherefrom the brain come? Materialistic scientists will say it has evolved.

10a. Then we answer: “you prepare a brain or keep something that by chance there will be a brain.”

Great scientists like Einstein, Newton, Chandra Bose had such great brains but who has created their brain.

Even that big man cannot create such brain. The big scientist, before dying, he should have considered, “now I will die soon. Let me create another brain and body like me and that will work.” That they cannot do. So there must be a second man, a second brain who has created the brains. Evolutionists say: “Nature is doing”, so nature means superior control. We say that nature is working under the superintendence of God. E.g. the sun, the moon, the seasonal changes are some of the parts and parcels of nature’s working. So many things, nature is working very systematically. The summer season will appear exactly in the month of June and July. The fall begins in September every year. One can foretell that “Next September  this  will  happen,”  because  nature’s  routine  is  very  fixed up. So this systematic work of nature, how it is possible if there is no supervision?

You have to accept there is superior administration. You may not know who is administrating, but you have to accept that there is some brain, that is the brain of God.

10b. A scientist may argue “In the test tube we have made some tissues, and the tissues are sustaining themselves and are living. So in due course, they’ll be able to create some functioning brain.”

10c. We answer “that proves that in nature a scientist created the brain and body.”

11. Another example defying chance: Cows are eating dry grass and giving you nice milk. There are no such vitamins in grass which produce milk when a human mother eats them. Rather she will die. So who made

this arrangement?

12. Another example. One process of protein synthesis in science is called

“The magic factor.”

12a. We comment. Magic is also chance. That must have been the God factor. And the scientists originating and steering the process of synthesis proofs that the proteins in nature are also synthesized by a scientist.

13. One more. There is a coconut tree, the hard nut and water. There must be pipe, pumping, the material in the right shape and water which nature and the master of nature arranged. You do something that water comes in the coconut up there or make such coconut root, tree and fruit.

14. The atheist argues “God to fill up the gaps”.

14a. No, we can proof that in human society nothing was done by chance. For a child there are gaps but an educated person knows that all dead matter is moved by human masters. A child may see a car driving.

and think “automatic”. Similarly, dead matter of nature is moved by the

Master Scientist, God.

15. As the scientist of our human world invents and operates from his office but enjoys at home, so, God immanent created and controls the material energy but enjoys in heaven as God transcendent.

16. God and heaven exists.

The Argument of the Original Replicator

1. Evolution is the process by which an organism evolves from simpler ancestors.

2. Evolution by itself cannot explain how the original ancestor—the first living thing—came into existence (from 1).

3. The theory of natural selection can deal with this problem only by saying that the first living thing evolved out of non-living matter (from

2).

4. That original non-living matter (call it the Original Replicator) must be capable of:

(a) self-replication,

(b) generating a functioning mechanism out of surrounding matter to protect itself against falling apart, and

(c) surviving slight mutations to itself that will then result in slightly

different replicators.

5. The Original Replicator is complex (from 4).

6. The Original Replicator is too complex to have arisen from purely physical processes (from 5 and The Classical Teleological Argument). For example, DNA, which currently carries the replicated design of organisms, cannot be the Original Replicator, because DNA molecules require a complex system of proteins to remain stable and to replicate, and could not have arisen from natural processes before complex life existed.

7.  Natural  selection  cannot  explain  the  complexity  of  the  Original

Replicator (from 3 and 6).

8. The Original Replicator must have been created rather than have evolved (from 7 and The Classical Teleological Argument). Biologists and chemists have a theory with many ‘maybe’ which not everyone accepts as conclusive saying that it is theoretically possible for a simple physical system to make exact copies of itself from surrounding materials. Since then they have identified a number of naturally occurring molecules and crystals that can replicate in ways that could lead to natural selection (in particular, that allow random variations to be preserved in the copies). Once a molecule replicates, the process of natural selection can start creating, and the replicator can accumulate matter and become more complex, eventually leading to precursors of the replication system used by living organisms today. All these steps are not yet copied or performed in the laboratories, but Nature has better scientists and has already done it, as we can see around us. One step was done; scientists performed an experiment where they used amino acids, water and electricity. They created a one celled being which had life in it. It moved like an amoeba. In another, the Urey-Miller experiment they used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapour, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour, and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as

10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed. Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane molecules became bio-molecules. The rest turned into hydrocarbons like bitumen.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: “Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids.”

After Miller’s death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from  the  original  experiments  were  able  to  show  that  there  were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller’s original experiments. That  is  considerably  more  than  what  Miller  originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth’s original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), and sulphur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. This all proves that in nature also a scientist worked with lightning, volcanic eruptions etc to make the amino acids and amoeba.

9. What actually happened with the production of the amoeba is that there were the life conditions, the conditions conducive to life, so therefore life or non-material soul or consciousness came, but not that this soul was produced by chemical combination. Life is different from the amino acids, water and electricity. This argument in Sanskrit is called, tandula- vrscika-nyaya. You have no experience in the west. In India they have got experience. Sometimes from a heap of rice, one scorpion is coming out. So foolish men, they will think that the heap of rice, piles of rice, is giving birth to a scorpion. No, that is not the fact. One should know the scorpion. This animal is very clever. They lay down eggs within the heaps of rice, and by the fermentation of the rice, it comes out. So actually, rice is not producing the scorpion. It is coming out under some chemical

fermentation process.

10. Nature is an instrument thus there must be an operator, just like the child is thinking the motor car is going automatically. He doesn’t know there is a driver. The child sees the airplane is flying. There is a pilot, he doesn’t know. He thinks it is automatically going. Without operator a machine cannot work.

11. Scientists claim that nature is going on as a biochemical reaction. But they cannot produce it by biochemical combination. And if they can do something they proof that in nature also scientists are at work doing it very systematically and successfully. As scientists are trying to do it, it is being already done by another person.

12. Scientists talk of accident theory. But this flower is not growing in this tree by accident. Accident means there is no law. One cannot argue. By accident some system of laws arose and from then on this flower is always with this tree. If the supreme cause is accident then at any moment accidents may have happened.

13. Or they say from a common ancestor (now extinct), monkey and man came. But why the ancestors of this common ancestor now don’t give common ancestors, monkeys and men. They could answer “we can make crossbreed.” But then they are the cause of this crossbreeding. It is not accident, you are making arrangement, therefore there is a cause.

14. Materialistic scientists reason that *nature* is bringing the subatomic particles into gasses, planets, flora, fauna, humans.

15. That means nature is above the scientists. Then they should worship nature and be submissive. They are submissive already, nature is pulling them, forcing disease, old age and death, weather, comets, time. Thus nature is stronger than them.

16. As soon as you are dependant, you must have to accept God. You may not know who is God and what is God, but somebody is controlling you and your activities, He is God.

17. Where you get the idea that from matter life is possible. Evolutionist: “In the future we will do it.” But in the original condition you show something. Just like formerly they were flying balloons. So because they were flying, they could say that “in the future we shall fly a big city– a Boeing 747.” And in the history we can see that that is not impossible, because in the beginning condition or initiative condition we see that big

things can be flown. But here and now you cannot even prepare an ant. You have not been able to prepare even a small ant, germ. Show me. So why do you say, “In future I shall do it”?

18. Anything that was created requires a Creator.

19.  God exists.

The argument from miracles of atheism

1. All matter in the universe appeared from nothing.

2. All matter in the universe being compressed in an area the size of a period on this page.

3. An explosion creating order instead of chaos.

4. Laws coming from nothing to create order.

5. Claiming gravity happens naturally when they don’t even know what gravity is or what causes it.

6. Life comes from lifeless matter.

7. Evolution is true even though less than 1% is observable from a single cell life to all that we see.

8. All these tenets of science are rather in the category of miracles than in the category of proven theories by experiments. They only see the effects but have no understanding of their cause. That means ignorance. Therefore, including God in the above explanations is the only possible option to properly understand things. Life can come only from life. Evolution  is  not  true  because  it  is  neither  observed  nor  proven  by experiment.

9. God exists.

The argument of the true evidence of supernatural abilities

1. Miraculous Anomalies for atheistic science fall into three general categories: a. Extrasensory perception, which refers to the ability to gather information that is beyond the normal reach of the senses, is the first and perhaps most popular form of parapsychology. ESP, as it is also called, is a concept that includes telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition.

b. Psycho kinesis, also referred to as PK, is the second category often

associated with parapsychology. This is when an individual is able to directly interact with physical objects through mental powers, whether by moving such objects with one’s mind or otherwise engaging them in subtle ways.

c. The study of the self as surviving bodily death, including near-death experiences, apparitions, and reincarnation.

2. The book ‘Dream Telepathy: Experiments in Nocturnal Extrasensory Perception’   (Studies   in   Consciousness)   tells   about   experiments at Brooklyn’s Maimonides Medical Center where mind-to-mind communication was put to the test. The many anecdotes and examples are fascinating in their own right and demonstrate how science can examine unusual real-life experiences using both rigor and imagination.

-- In his book ‘The Reality of ESP: A Physicist’s Proof of Psychic

Abilities’ Russel Targ mentions the following true story:

“On February 4, 1974, members of the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped  nineteen-year-old  newspaper  heiress  Patricia  Hearst  from her Berkeley, California apartment. Desperate to find her, the police called physicist Russell Targ and Pat Price, a psychic retired police commissioner. As Price turned the pages of the police mug book filled with hundreds of photos, suddenly he pointed to one of them and announced, “That’s the ringleader.” The man was Donald DeFreeze, who was indeed subsequently so identified. Price also described the type and location of the kidnap car, enabling the police to find it within minutes.” As a scientist, Targ demands proof. His experience is based on two decades of investigations at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which he cofounded with physicist Harold Puthoff in 1972. This twenty-million dollar program launched during the Cold War was supported by the CIA, NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Army and Air Force Intelligence. The experiments they conducted routinely presented results could have happened by chance less than once in a million. Targ describes four types of experiments:

a.  Remote Viewing,  in  which  a  person  describes  places  and  events independent of space and time. For example, while in California Price drew to scale a Soviet weapons factory at Semipalitinsk with great accuracy later confirmed by Satellite photography. In another remote viewing, Targ accurately sketched an airport in San Andreas, Columbia

himself.

b. Distant Mental Influence, where the thoughts of the experimenter can positively or negatively affect the physiology (heart rate, skin resistance, etc.) of a distant person.

c. Whole field isolation, where someone in a state of sensory isolation accurately describes the visual experiences of someone else in another place.

d. Precognition and retro causality, showing that the future can affect the past. That is, the elephant you see on television in the morning can be the cause of your having dreamed about elephants the previous night.

Final chapters present evidence for survival after death; explain how ESP works based on the Buddhist/Hindu view of our selves as non-local, eternal awareness; discuss the ethics of exercising psychic abilities, and show us how to explore ESP ourselves. “I am convinced,” Targ says, “that most people can learn to move from their ordinary mind to one not obstructed by conventional barriers of space and time. Who would not want to try that?”

3. About the book ‘Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities’ David E. Presti from the University of California, Berkeley writes:

“Dean Radin is a modern-day Galileo of psychical research.  He is an impeccable scholar and premier experimental scientist, and this is a terrific book.  Come, look through his telescope; with great clarity, he goes right to the core of the most profound issues in the contemporary science of mind.   By including a detailed review of a variety of experimental findings, this book presents in one easily accessible place a wealth of information, creating a valuable reference and teaching/ learning resource for students and scholars alike. And by connecting all this with contemplative investigations of the nature of mind carried out over the course of millennia, this book makes an invaluable contribution to expanding the modern dialogue between science and the contemplative traditions.”

4. These and many other works of many university researchers prove that supernatural abilities do exist.

5. The meaning of SUPERNATURAL as per Merriam Webster dictionary is ‘departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear

to transcend the laws of nature.’ I.o.w that thing what does not exist in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws.

6. The supernatural abilities of all tested people under strict circumstances for scientific experiments, had to be acquired from outside gross matter.

7. The source of the abilities has to be a conscious being who understands the wish of people for certain ability. And ‘first deserve then desire;’ these developed from many previous births.

8. Because there are perfect, more perfect and most perfect people with various supernatural abilities the source and cause of their different degrees of perfection have to have the greatest perfection.

9. This is the description of God the possessor of all mystic perfection in the highest degree.

10. God exists.

The argument of paranormal abilities or mystic perfections

1. There is no scientific explanation for “psychic powers.”

2. The atheists say: ‘There may be explained by science later on in the future.’

3. But we say NO because psychic powers like extrasensory perceptions are supernatural, defying all physical laws.

4. Parapsychologist researchers gave the following list of psychic abilities:

- Apportation - Materialization, disappearance or teleportation of an object.[1]

- Aura reading - Perception of energy fields surrounding people, places and things.[2]

- Automatic writing - Writing produced without conscious thought.[3]

- Astral projection or mental projection - An out-of-body experience in which an astral body becomes separate from the physical body.[4]

- Bilocation or multilocation - Being in multiple places at the same time. [5]

- Clairvoyance or second sight - Perception outside the known human senses.[2]

- Death-warning - A vision of a living person prior to his or her death.[6]

- Divination - Gaining insight into a situation, most commonly through a ritual[7]

- Dowsing - Ability to locate objects, sometimes using a tool called a dowsing rod.[8]

- Energy medicine - Healing by channelling a form of energy.[9]

- Faith healing - Diagnosing or curing diseases using religious devotion. [10]

- Levitation - Bodily levitation and flying.[11]

- Medium ship or channelling - Communicating with spirits.[12]

- Precognition, premonition and precognitive dreams - Perception of events before they happen.[13]

- Psychic surgery - Removal of diseased body tissue via an incision that heals immediately afterwards.[14]

- Psycho kinesis or telekinesis - The ability to manipulate matter by the power of thought.[15]

- Psychometry or psychos copy - Obtaining information about a person or object, usually by touching or concentrating on the object or a related object.[16]

- Pyrokinesis - Manipulation of fire.[17]

- Remote viewing - Gathering of information at a distance.[18]

- Retro cognition or post-cognition - Perception of past events.[19]

- Scrying - Use of an item to view events at a distance or in the future.[20]

- Telepathy - Transfer of thoughts or emotions in either direction.[21]

5.  Here are some examples of people with Psychihc abilities:

- Dougall Fraser who self-titled himself as “Queer Guy with a Third Eye,” knew from a very young age that he had psychic abilities. He saw the world differently and told people what he saw. By the age of 8 he had already given his first reading. His dead-on predictions have had him named “Best Psychic in Dallas” in 1999.

- Sylvia Browne is arguably the most well-known “celebrity psychic,” who has been the most prominent psychic reader in the United States. Her latest addition to her organization is the Sylvia Browne Hypnosis Training Center, a school for anyone who wants to help heal people through proven therapeutic hypnosis methods. She became world- famous psychic and performed spiritual readings for over 50,000 people in nearly 30 countries.

-  Danielle  Egnew  is  proficient in  many  forms  of  psychic  practice, including: clairvoyance, clairsentience, channelling, psychometry, telemetry, medium ship and paranormal investigation. Egnew is also a licensed Christian minister, and she has stated that her clairvoyant abilities come from angelic entities and guides. She has done work as a creative consultant for paranormal TV shows produced by major Hollywood and Fortune 500 studios, and she co-founded the Western Pacific Paranormal Alliance.

- John Edward is an internationally known psychic medium who specializes in speaking to the spirits of the dearly departed. His work has helped thousands of people over the years to find peace and closure around the deaths of those they love. While some argue that John Edward simply uses the mentalist techniques of cold and hot reading to get a sense for his clients’ and viewers’ pasts, many swear by his uncanny abilities to speak with their loved ones who passed on and to ascertain details that could never have been known without the gift of psychic sight.

6. Materialistic people acquire these simple abilities either through taking some drugs or having some trauma, without fixing their mind in the Supreme Lord. Their perfections are gross and inferior reflections of various mystic potencies acquired by yogis who attain more advanced perfections by meditating on God.

7. Krishna gives the following list of 23 paranormal, mystic perfections, and is also explaining how to attain them (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.15):

- One who worships Me in My atomic form pervading all subtle elements, fixing his mind on that alone, obtains the mystic perfection called anima (becoming smaller than the smallest), by which one can enter within even the most dense matter such as stone or pass through any obstacle.

- One who absorbs his mind in the particular form of the mahat-tattva (totality of material elements) and thus meditates upon Me as the Supreme Soul of the total material existence achieves the mystic perfection called mahima (becoming greater than the greatest). By further absorbing the mind in the situation of each individual element such as the sky, air, fire, and so on, one progressively acquires the greatness of each material element.

- I exist within everything, and I am therefore the essence of the atomic constituents of material elements. By attaching his mind to Me in this

form, the yogi may achieve the perfection called laghima (becoming lighter than the lightest), by which he realizes the subtle atomic substance of time. One becomes so light that one can ride on the sun’s rays into the sun planet.

- Fixing his mind completely in Me within the element of false ego generated from the mode of goodness, the yogi obtains the power of mystic acquisition, prapti-siddhi. He obtains such perfection because his mind is absorbed in Me. One can acquire anything from anywhere and can even touch the moon with one’s finger. By this mystic perfection one can also enter into the senses of any other living entity through the predominating deities of the particular senses; and by thus utilizing the senses of others, one can acquire anything.

- One who concentrates all mental activities in Me as the Supersoul of that phase of the mahat-tattva which manifests the chain of fruitive activities obtains from Me, whose appearance is beyond material perception, the most excellent mystic perfection called prakamya (assume any shape or form one may even whimsically desire). Avyakta-janmanah indicates that the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears from the avyakta, or the spiritual sky, or that His birth is avyakta, beyond the perception of material senses. Unless one accepts the transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no possibility of obtaining prakamya or any other genuine mystic perfection; one gets an inferior reflection.

- One who places his consciousness on Vishnu, the Supersoul, the prime mover and Supreme Lord of the external energy consisting of three modes, obtains the mystic perfection of controlling other conditioned souls, their material bodies and their bodily designations.

- One who places his consciousness on Vishnu, the Supersoul, the prime mover and Supreme Lord of the external energy consisting of three modes, obtains the mystic perfection of controlling other conditioned souls, their material bodies and their bodily designations. One can manipulate the sub-potencies of maya, which are material. In other words, even by acquiring mystic powers one cannot pass beyond the control of illusion; however, one may manipulate the sub-potencies of illusion

- The yogi who places his mind in My form of Narayana as turiya, known as the fourth factor or beyond the modes, full of all opulences, becomes

endowed with My nature and thus obtains the mystic perfection called vashita or freedom from the modes of nature.

- One who fixes his pure mind on Me in My manifestation as the impersonal Brahman obtains the greatest happiness, wherein all his desires are completely fulfilled. This is called kamavasayita-siddhi, or the perfection of completely obtaining anything that one desires.

The secondary mystic perfections arising from the modes of nature.

- A human being who concentrates on Me as the upholder of religious principles, the personification of purity and the Lord of Shvetadvipa obtains the pure existence in which he is freed from the six waves of material disturbance, namely hunger, thirst, decay, death, grief and illusion. I.o.w. by worshiping Lord Vishnu as the personification of material goodness one obtains the material benediction of freedom from bodily disturbance.

- That purified living entity who fixes his mind on the extraordinary sound vibrations occurring within Me as the personified sky and total life air is then able to perceive within the sky the speaking of all living entities. I.o.w. one who meditates on the Supreme Lord as the personified sky and air thereby acquires the ability to hear that which is vibrated at great distance.

- Merging one’s sight into the sun planet and then the sun planet into one’s eyes, one should meditate on Me as existing within the combination of sun and vision; thus one acquires the power to see any distant thing.

- The yogi who completely absorbs his mind in Me, and who then makes use of the wind that follows the mind to absorb the material body in Me, obtains through the potency of meditation on Me the mystic perfection by which his body immediately follows his mind wherever it goes. There is a particular subtle air that follows the mind. When the yogi merges this air together with the body and mind in Krshna by the potency of meditation on the Lord, his gross material body, like the subtle air, can follow the mind anywhere. This perfection is called mano-javah.

- When the yogi, applying his mind in a certain way, desires to assume a particular form, that very form immediately appears. Such perfection is possible by absorbing the mind in the shelter of My inconceivable mystic potency, by which I assume innumerable forms. This perfection is called kama-rupa, or the ability to assume any form that one desires.

- When a perfect yogi desires to enter another’s body, he should meditate upon himself within the other body, and then, giving up his own gross body, he should enter the other’s body through the pathways of air, as easily as a bee leaves one flower and flies into another. One may admire a heroic man or beautiful woman and desire to experience life within their extraordinary material body. Such opportunities are available through the mystic perfection called para-kaya-praveshanam.

- The yogi who has achieved the mystic perfection called svacchanda- mrityu blocks the anus with the heel of the foot and then lifts the soul from the heart to the chest, to the neck and finally to the head. Situated within the brahma-randhra, the yogi then gives up his material body and guides the spirit soul to the selected destination. This mystic opulence of svacchandu-mrityu, or dying at will.

- The yogi who desires to enjoy in the pleasure gardens of the demigods should meditate on the purified mode of goodness, which is situated within Me, and then the heavenly women, generated from the mode of goodness, will approach him in airplanes.

- A yogi who has faith in Me, absorbing his mind in Me and knowing that My purpose is always fulfilled, will always achieve his purpose by the very means he has determined to follow.

- By the mystic power called yatha-sankalpa-samsiddhi one will achieve one’s objective even if one pursues it at an inauspicious time.

- A person who perfectly meditates on Me acquires My nature of being the supreme ruler and controller. His order, like Mine, can never be frustrated by any means.

- A yogi who has purified his existence by devotion to Me and who thus expertly knows the process of meditation obtains knowledge of past, present and future. He can therefore see the birth and death of himself and others.

- Just as the bodies of aquatics cannot be injured by water, similarly, the body of a yogi whose consciousness is pacified by devotion to Me and who is fully developed in yoga science cannot be injured by fire, sun, water, poison, and so forth. I.o.w for one skilled in the techniques of yoga, fending off attacks by weapons, fire, poison, and so on, is a recreational activity.

- My devotee becomes unconquerable by meditating on My opulent

incarnations, which are decorated with Shrivatsa and various weapons and are endowed with imperial paraphernalia such as flags, ornamental umbrellas and fans.

- A learned devotee who worships Me through yoga meditation certainly obtains in all respects the mystic perfections that I have described.

8. These mystic potencies originally exist in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, in the superlative degree. Lord Krishna becomes so small that He enters within the atomic particles, and He becomes so large that as Maha-Visnu He breathes out millions of universes. The Lord can become so light or subtle that even great mystic yogis cannot perceive Him, and the Lord’s acquisitive power is perfect, because He keeps the total existence eternally within His body. The Lord certainly can enjoy whatever He likes, control all energies, dominate all other persons and exhibit complete omnipotency. Therefore it is to be understood that these mystic perfections are insignificant expansions of the mystic potency of the Lord, who in Bhagavad-gita is called Yogesvara, the Supreme Lord of all mystic potencies. These mystic perfections are not artificial, but are natural and unexcelled because they originally exist in the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

9. The person who is perfect in all mystic powers all the time without beginning and end, from Who all the yogis get their desired mystic perfections is called Yogesvara or the Lord and master of all mystic perfections. This is the definition and description of God.

10. God exists.

References

1. Fontana, David (2005). Is There an Afterlife?. New Alresford: O Books. pp. 352–381. ISBN 1-903816-90-4.

2. a b “Glossary of Psi (Parapsychological) Terms (A-D)”. Parapsych. org. Retrieved 2013-11-09.

3. Miller, Sukie (1998). After Death: How People Around the World Map the Journey After Life (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684838694.

4.  Astral  Dynamics  by  Robert  Bruce.  Hampton  Roads  Publishing

Company, Inc, 1999 ISBN 1-57174-143-7

5. Preston Peet (2007-12-19). “Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained:

Una McGovern: 9780550102157: Amazon.com: Books”. Amazon.com. Retrieved 2013-11-09.

6.  Gurney,  Edmund  (2011).  Phantasms  of  the  Living.  Cambridge

University Press. ISBN 9781108027328.

7. Flower, Michael (2007). The seer in ancient Greece ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520252295.

8. Miller, Sukie (1998). After Death: How People Around the World Map the Journey After Life (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 167–192. ISBN 9780684838694.

9. Edzard Ernst. “A primer of complementary and alternative medicine commonly used by cancer patients | Medical Journal of Australia”. Mja. com.au. Retrieved 2013-11-09.

10. Loewenthal, Kate (2009). Religion, Culture and Mental Health. Cambridge:    Cambridge    University    Press.    pp.    97–107.    ISBN

9780521107778.

11. Oldridge, Darren (2007). Strange Histories: The Trial of the Pig, the Walking Dead, and Other Matters of Fact from the Medieval and Renaissance Worlds. London: Routledge. p. “Werewolves and Flying Witches”. ISBN 9780415404921.

12. “medium - The Skeptic’s Dictionary”. Skepdic.com. Retrieved 2013-

11-09.

13. Randi, James (1995). An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press. ISBN 0-312-13066-X.

14. Spence, Lewis (2007). Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology

(3rd ed.). [Whitefish, Mont.]: Kessinger Publishing. p. 750. ISBN 978-

0-7661-2817-0.

15. Braude, Stephen E. (2002). ESP and Psychokinesis: A Philosophical

Examination (Rev. ed.). Parkland, Fla.: Brown Walker Press. p. 21. ISBN

1-58112-407-4.

16. Beloff, John (1997). Parapsychology: a Concise History (1st paperback ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-312-

17376-0.

17.  Genzmer,  Herbert  (2007).  Mysteries  of  the World:  Unexplained

Wonders and Mysterious Phenomena (American ed.). Bath: Parragon. p.

194. ISBN 1405490225.

18. Zusne, Leonard (1989). Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical

Thinking (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum. p. 167. ISBN 0-8058-

0508-7.

19. Wolman, Benjamin B. (1986). Handbook of Parapsychology (Repr. ed.). Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. pp. 921–936. ISBN 9780899501864.

20. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society: A postgraduate conference

21. Hamilton, Trevor (2009). Immortal Longings: FWH Myers and the

Victorian Search for Life after Death. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic. p.

121. ISBN 978-1-84540-248-8.

The argument of true evidence in psychology (i)

1. Many people who are clinically mentally healthy have experienced paranormal events, so for educated people to write them off with extreme prejudice comes across more as an emotional rather than an empirical response.

2. Studying energies, ghosts and, yes, even faeries is not considered classical science, and metaphysical researchers are often branded as kooks and charlatans.  Is there validity to their work, and can it be considered true science?

2a. The answer to both questions is yes, paranormal occurrences can be tested with science and technology.

3. We now find organizations of professional scientists who openly study phenomena lying on the edge between physical science and the realms of mysticism and the paranormal. Examples are the International Association for New Science (IANS), the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE), the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and the International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM). These all sponsor regular scientific conferences.

3a. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic  journal  of  the  Society  for  Scientific  Exploration  (SSE). The publication is providing “a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science.” The journal was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, crypto zoology,

and parapsychology. It has also published research articles, essays, and book reviews on many other topics, including the philosophy of science, pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, alternative medicine, the process of peer review for controversial topics,[6] astrology, consciousness, reincarnation, minority opinion scientific theories, and paranormal phenomena.

3b. Lucius Werthmüller is a Swiss writer and parapsychologist with a life-long research interest in the paranormal. On a recent visit to the United States, including the SF Bay Area, Lucius presented a workshop on parapsychology at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), during which he showed documentary films of paranormal healers, sometimes also called “psychic surgeons.” Here is the story of one movie.

-- Romilda, a 15 minute film, shows a Brazilian woman, in her late twenties or early thirties, performing surgery to remove a cyst the size of a golf ball from Lucius Werthmüller’s neck. She uses a surgical knife to make the initial incision but then uses her gloved hands to remove the cyst. As in the other procedures shown in these films, there is no use of anesthetics to stop pain or antibiotics to stop infection. Lucius is awake during the whole operation, is talking and cracking jokes with the surgeon-healer and other family members and observers. The incision is manually closed after the procedure, the skin pulled together, and the area wiped clean. In the middle of the procedure, Romilda the surgeon, responding to some inner intuition, breaks into a lilting Brazilian lullaby. Lucius told us that Romilda was a foundling: she had been abandoned by her mother in a trash can in Rio de Janeiro after her birth, and has only elementary school education.  She discovered her healing abilities as a teen-ager and has been practicing ever since.

-- For many people, accepting the possible reality of healings through such unusual methods is perhaps more threatening than the mere sight of blood lying around. Looking for explanations in terms of “faking” is the cheap way out. The best is to watch the film and face the reality of phenomena of spiritual healing that go far beyond what the present sciences can explain.

3c. Is the human body merely a complex biological machine, or is our health sustained by “subtle energies” that can be guided for healing? These are the questions posed by the field of energy medicine. Since

1990, the International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM) has hosted the world’s most eminent scholars and practitioners within this revolutionary new medical field. From the effects of bioelectromagnetic energy on the body to the healing effects of prayer to subtle energy practices of other cultures, the book

‘Energy Medicine’ gathers the best of these celebrated conferences for the first time ever. Among the twelve medical pioneers who lift the veil on some of today’s most exciting scientific discoveries Dr. Larry Dossey explains about scientific evidence for prayer as a healing force and Dr. Caroline Myss presents a penetrating look inside the mind of a medical intuitive.

4. The parapsychologist Ian Stevenson has given an example of a poltergeist case from India that involves disappearing food.[1] It seems that a woman from the village of Degaon, south of Bombay, had the reputation in the village of being a sorceress. Food mysteriously disappearing in the village was turning up in her dwelling.

5a. Stevenson’s informant, one Swami Krishnanand, decided to put her abilities to the test. In one instance, “Swami Krishnanand … pointed to a lota (pot) which he held in his hand and to a man who was milking a cow some distance away, and asked to have some of the milk put into the lota. Instantly the lota became filled with milk and at the same time the milk-man noticed that his vessel had less, rather than more, milk in it. He looked up astonished.”[2] The woman believed that these effects were due to a discarnate spirit that was allied with her, and Stevenson was inclined to favor this interpretation.

5b. Uri Geller. Geller is one of the most well-known “psychics” who has publicly demonstrated feats of psycho kinesis: spoon and key bending have become almost synonymous with Geller’s name. Although many skeptics and magicians consider his metal-bending performances nothing more than adroit sleight-of-hand, Geller has allegedly shown that he can manifest the effects over great distances and in multiple locations. On a British radio show in 1973, after demonstrating key bending to the astonishment of the host, Geller invited the listening audience to participate. Just minutes later, phone calls began pouring into the radio station from listeners all over the UK reporting that knives, forks, spoons, keys and nails began to bend and twist spontaneously. Watches and clocks that had not run in years began to work. It was an event whose success surprised even Geller and thrust him into the spotlight.

6. There are many accounts of this nature, it follows that miracles are real even though not due to the direct action of God or the highly placed servants of God known as demigods. But there are many supernatural beings between Heaven and earth,

As the USA government e.g has so many ministers, secretaries, clerks, administrators, cleaners etc etc a giant bureaucracy.

7. Newton introduced the strict mathematical formulation of the laws of nature known as the “laws of physics.” By experimental measurements one can confirm the laws with great accuracy.

8. Laws of physics are completely incompatible with the kind of miraculous events.

9. No occurrence of any action takes place without someone’s will and control.

10. As the gross physical entities can operate on the gross physical level so there are living entities who operate and control things in the subtle, to us non-visible dimension.

11. God operates on an even higher, more subtle dimension namely the spiritual dimension visible only for spiritually advanced souls.

12. God exists.

References

1. Stevenson, Ian, July, 1972, “Are Poltergeists Living or Are They

Dead?” The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol.

66, No. 3.

2. Ibid.

The Argument from the

Hard Problem of Consciousness

1.  The  Hard  Problem  of  Consciousness  for  materialists  consists  in the difficulty in explaining why it subjectively feels like something witnessing the functioning brain and body. (This is to be distinguished from the so-called Easy Problem of Consciousness, which is to explain why some brain processes are unconscious and others are conscious.) Just like you reader, suppose you are young man. You had a body of

a child. You remember that you had a body of a child, but that body is no longer existing. But you remember; therefore you, the owner of the body, is existing. Otherwise how do you remember, “I had a body like this with this measurement? But that body is no longer existing, but you are remembering. So you are the owner and witness, transcendental to the body. Just like you have now for example a black coat. Say after two days you may put on another colored coat, but you remember that “I was putting on one black coat on that day.” So you are existing; the coat is changed. Similarly, the soul is existing; the body is changed. Therefore it is natural to know that when you are an old man and will die, then I change this body, I get another body. A text from Bhagavad-Gita (2.13) says: “As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.” Because he has witnessed during the life in this body, many reincarnations literally changes of flesh, in science called turn-over times of ALL the parts of the body. He knows: ”Many bodies have died, new bodies came, now this old body will go, I know already I am eternal,” so he has no fear.

2. Consciousness (in the Hard-Problem sense) is not a complex phenomenon built out of simpler ones; it consists of the irreducible substrate or basis of “raw feels, thoughts and desires” like seeing red, tasting salt, experiencing feelings, having thoughts.

3. Science explains complex phenomena by reducing them to simpler ones, and reducing them to still simpler ones, until the simplest ones are explained by the basic laws of physics.

4. The basic laws of physics describe the properties of the elementary constituents of matter and energy, like quarks and quanta, which are not conscious.

5. Science cannot derive to consciousness by reducing it to basic physical laws about the elementary constituents of matter and energy (from 2, 3, and 4). Science doesn’t have a theory of neuroscience that explains how consciousness emerges from patterns of neural activity

6. Material science will never solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness (from 3 and 5) because it is not an emergent of matter (see 1) since it is the eternal transcendental spectator of matter

7. The explanation for consciousness is that it is beyond physical laws (from 6).

8. Consciousness, lying outside physical laws, must itself be immaterial (from 7). Every measurable manifestation of consciousness, like our ability to describe what we feel, or let our feelings guide our behavior (the “Easy Problem” of consciousness), has been, or will be, explained in terms of neural activity (that is, every thought, feeling, and intention has a neural correlate). Only the existence of consciousness itself (the “Hard Problem”) remains mysterious, for materialists.

9. God is also immaterial. When you reader understand that “I, the proprietor of the body, I am different from this body,” then you will understand God also, very easily. Because you are the proprietor of this body, and you are given the controlling power of the body by thinking, feeling, willing, by acting. You have your body. You are sitting. You can say, “Now I am going away.” The body is under your control. You can do that. Similarly, when you understand this fully, then you’ll understand that in this huge, gigantic body, material cosmic manifestation, there is also an immaterial proprietor and controller, easily. God is not different in quality than you. God means like you in huge, unlimited quantity. As you have got little intelligence—you can create a wonderful thing, Boeing 747 airplane flying in the air—so God has got unlimited brain. Millions and trillions of universes are floating or flying in the air. The process is the same. You are teeny. You are very much proud that “I am so advanced that I have manufactured the 747.” Now compare with the intelligence of God? Such a huge lump of matter, the sun, is floating also there. That is the difference between you and God. You have got brain, He has got brain, but your the brain is very teeny, little, and His brain very big. That is difference between you and God. So if you understand yourself, sample of God, then you understand the Supreme God.

10a. Consciousness and God both consist of the same immaterial kind of being (from 8 and 9). Consciousness comes from a spark of the divine, the soul.

10b. God has not only the means to impart consciousness to us, but also the motive—namely, to allow us to enjoy a good life, and to make it possible for our choices to cause or prevent suffering in others, thereby allowing for morality and meaning.

11. God exists.

The Digital Physics Argument

1. Simulations can only exist in a computer or a mind.

2. The universe can be imitated in a computer simulation. Thus the original is also created by a mind.

3. A simulation on a computer still must be simulated in a mind.

4. Therefore, the universe is a simulation in a mind (2,3).

5. This mind is what all men call God.

6. Therefore, God exists.

The Argument from the

Inconceivability of Personal Annihilation

1. I cannot conceive of my own annihilation: as soon as I am thinking, this implies that I exist (as in Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum). And I will always exist as the Bhagavad-Gita (2.12-24) explains:

“Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul. For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones. The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind. This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.”

This implies that I cannot be thinking about what it is like not to exist.

2. My annihilation is inconceivable (from 1).

3. What cannot be conceived, cannot be.

4. I cannot be annihilated (from 2 and 3).

5. I survive after my death (from 4). The body is changing from one form to another, but the spirit soul is existing eternally. This fact we can experience even in our own life. Since the beginning of our material body in the womb of our mother, the body is transforming from one shape to another in every second and in every minute. This process is generally known as growth, but actually it is change of body. On this earth planet we see change of day and night and of seasons. The more primitive mentality attributes this change to changes occurring in the sun. For example, in the winter they think the sun is getting weaker, and at night they presume sometimes that the sun is dead. With more advanced knowledge of discovery we see that sun is not changing at all in this way. Seasonal and diurnal changes are attributed to the change of the position of the earth planet. Similarly, we experience bodily changes from embryo to child to youth to maturity to old age and to death. The less intelligent mind presumes that at the death the spirit soul’s existence is forever finished, just like primitive tribes who believe that the sun dies at sunset. Actually, the sun is rising in another part of the world. Similarly, the soul is accepting another type of body. When the body gets old like the old garments and is no longer usable, then the soul accepts another body just like we accept a new suit of clothes. The modern civilization is enamored by the glimmering manifestation of the cosmic body or the individual body, but they do not try to understand the basic principles of this glimmering situation. The body looks very beautiful working with full energy and exhibiting great traits of talent and wonderful brain work. But as soon as the soul is away from the body, all this glimmering situation of the body becomes useless. Even the great scientists who have discovered many wonderful scientific contributions could not trace out about the personal self, which is the cause of such wonderful discoveries. You can find out the background of this body as the soul and the soul’s presence as perceived, perceptible by consciousness. Similarly, the presence of Supersoul and super-consciousness in the universal body of cosmic manifestation is perceived by the presence of the Supreme Lord, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases

of  understanding,  namely  as  Brahman,  or  the  impersonal  universal soul; Paramatma, or the localized universal soul; and at the end as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. An individual soul is understood in three aspects, namely first in the consciousness pervading all over the body, then as the spirit soul within the heart, and ultimately exhibited as a person. Similarly, the Absolute Truth is first realized as impersonal Brahman, then as localized Supersoul, Paramatma, and at the end as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna. Krishna means all-inclusive, or, in other words, Krishna is simultaneously Brahman, Paramatma, and the Personality of Godhead. As such, as every one of us is simultaneously consciousness, soul, and person, this individual person and the Supreme Lord Person are qualitatively one but quantitatively different. Just like the drop of sea water and the vast mass of sea water—both are qualitatively one. The chemical composition of the drop of sea water and that of the mass of sea water are one and the same, but the quantity of salt and other minerals in the whole sea is many, many times greater than the quantity of salt and other minerals contained in the drop of sea water. The Supreme Lord, or Krishna, is the maintainer of the individual living entities.

6. God exists.

Argument from star trek

1. Star Trek is a show with supernatural phenomena.

2. All the wonders in it seem like magic but it’s actually yoga science!

3. These mystic perfection are also known as yogic siddhi’s or perfections.

- one transforms one’s own body becoming smaller than the smallest or becoming greater than the greatest,

- one can become lighter than the lightest,

- one can acquires whatever one desires,

- one can experiences any enjoyable object, either in this world or the next,

- one can obtain anything from anywhere, to the highest possible limit.

4. Atheists say: “ Even if all those extraordinary reports about miracles turn out to be real, it doesn’t mean God exists.”

5. However, humans are not born with abilities of telepathy, telekinesis, omnipotence etc. These abilities have to be acquired.

6. As electricity comes from a powerhouse so mystic abilities have a source. Moreover these have to belong to a person and only a person can give an ability to somebody else who desires to have e.g. telepathy, telekinesis etc.

7. The atheist can say: “These abilities are coming from the unexplored, undeveloped parts of the brain.”

8. We reply: Dr. J. B. Rhine and other parapsychologists have shown persuasive evidence for telepathy (the ability to read another person’s thoughts) and clairvoyance (the ability to perceive objects and events without using your senses). And experiments have shown that both telepathy and clairvoyance can work over long distances.

8a. The brain works locally but the mystical abilities go even further, out of the body and do not depend on the functioning of the brain just like at the time of clinical death there is sometimes an experience of the outer world without any functioning of the brain and heart.

9. This means mystical powers are within the mind, which is a subtle energy  that  continues  to exist  after  the  material  body  dies  and  can independently function of the material body also during clinical death or real death.

10. As per point 6 & 8a the mystical abilities have to be received from outside from a conscious source who has all the mystic perfections within Him.

11. This conscious source of mystic powers who fulfils the desires of all mystics for mystic perfections is God.

12. God exists.

The argument of the original economy

1. Nowadays people are wondering why there are many times economic crises.

2. However, in Vedic times more than 5000 years ago the economy was flourishing because people did perform sacrifices for the pleasure of God.

3. In Hastinapura, Dhritarashtra had performed five sacrifices with the wealth Pandu had bestowed upon him. He gave charity to hundreds of thousands of brahmanas and satisfied the gods with his offerings. The kingdom flourished and the citizens had everything they desired. They

were devoted to virtue, sacrifice and truth. Bearing love and affection for one another, they grew in prosperity. Hastinapura was like the ocean filled with numerous palaces and mansions. There were golden arches and  crystal  fountains  everywhere.  Between  broad,  paved  highways lay beautiful gardens and the air was filled with the sweet fragrance of blossoming trees. The clatter of horses’ hooves and chariot wheels mixed with the trumpeting of elephants and the blare of conch shells which mark the beginning of sacrificial performances. Holy chants uttered by numerous Brahmins emanated from tall and exquisitely carved temple buildings, which graced the city in their thousands. Hastinapura appeared like Indra’s celestial capital, and each day dozens of feudal kings would come to bring tribute.

4. Nowadays people are wondering why there is global warming.

b. However, in Vedic times more than 5000 years ago the rain would fall at night and during the day there was nice weather.

c. The balance of the weather was maintained by sacrifices for the pleasure of God.

d. Once Raghavendra Tirtha was requested to come to the palace of King Vijayaraghava to perform the Varuna Yajna to bring rain to the kingdom. This part of the country hadn’t seen rain in a long time, so as the king was very responsible and pious, he brought the best of brahmanas there to invoke rain. Raghavendra Tirtha first as usual performed the preliminary pujas and then worshiped Mula Rama.  He requested the Supreme Lord, Rama, the controller of the three worlds, to empower him to purely perform the yajna (sacrifice) as requested and to give the required result, rain, to the people in the kingdom.

4b. That night after the yajna, there was a heavy downpour.  It was not a violent storm, but very pleasing.   Invoked by the pure devotion of Raghavendra Swami, everyone reaped a ‘bumper crop’ that year.

5. God, who awards the result of sacrifices, so that people can live happily in this and the next life, exists.

Argument from blindness

1. Atheists are spiritually blind. In our practical experience we never see that inert bricks can themselves construct a big building. What is taking place within your practical experience by chance?

2. They are also blind about the soul; In your childhood you were conscious, in your boyhood you were conscious, in your youth you were conscious, and as you progress to old age you will be conscious. So your body is changing, but your consciousness continues unchanged. This you cannot deny. Therefore the Bhagavad-gita says, na hanyate hanyamane sarire: [Bg. 2.20] “Consciousness is eternal. It is not vanquished with the destruction of the temporary body.” Or another example: a child born. If the child is born dead, it is simply dead matter. It does not grow. But if the child is living, or the spirit soul is within that body, then it develops.

3. Similarly, the whole cosmic manifestation, this big universe, unless there is, in the center, the Supreme Spirit, how it develops? It cannot develop. Either you take this body or take this universal body—without the spirit being entered within it, there cannot be development. If they accept that life started from life, then they’ll have to accept God, the Supreme Person. Just like by practical experience we see one life is produced by another life. The father, mother begets a child. Not that a child drops from the sky. Their test tube experiment also depends on the father and mother. Where is the proof that in the test tube you mix some chemical and produce a child. Then your theory is all right. You cannot create even an ant, even a fly. And still you are claiming that you can manufacture human being? We can see life started from life, father begetting child. We can see father is a living man, and another child will be born. But where is life starting from matter? Where is that evidence? Life starting from life, we have got practical experience, but where is the evidence that life started from matter? They have no practical experience that life is coming from matter. That is called vriscika-tandula-nyaya. You have no experience in the west. In India there is. Sometimes you’ll find, a scorpion is coming out from the stack of rice.. So some are thinking the rice is producing the scorpion. It is called tandula-vriscika-nyaya. But rice cannot produce a life. The real fact is a scorpion lays down the egg within the rice, and by the fermentation the small creature comes out. And foolish creatures, they think it that the rice is producing scorpion.

4. Another  example:  an  airplane  is  flying in  the  sky  but  it  is  not independently flying. There is the pilot. He is pushing the button, and it is flying. A big car, big machine, big factory—without touch of spiritual

consciousness, there is no question of moving. We have got this practical experience. Where is the evidence that, without the touch of spirit soul, that machine is moving? Is there any evidence? Then how you can say that without God, the whole universe is moving? There is no evidence. We have no such experience. Then how you can say that without the direction of God, the material nature can move? The atheists say “Big Bang” They do not see who is behind this explosion. That is their ignorance or poor fund of knowledge. We have got practical experience that no explosion takes place without the touch of a human being. Similarly, even there was explosion going on before the creation, but there is a touch of the Supreme Being. If we are seeing the explosion, we know somebody caused it. But if a child sees an explosion, he does not know that behind the explosion, there is a management of a superior being. This is childish observation. In scripture we read that behind everything, the hand of the Supreme Being is there, and by our practical experience also, we see that matter does not act automatically without being touched by a living being, so how we can accept this argument, that the explosion is going on automatically? What is the evidence? There is no evidence.

5. Another example, the original water of the oceans came from the perspiration of God. Just like you have perspiration. You can produce, say, one gram or, say, one ounce of water through your bodily heat. So if you can produce one ounce of water from your body, why God cannot produce volumes and millions of tons of water from His body? Where is the difficulty to understand? You are a tiny soul, and you have got a small body. You can produce one ounce of water by your perspiration. Why God, who has got the gigantic body of His universe, He cannot produce water.

6. And where is God. Just like a big man, rich man: he is the enjoyer and he has got many servants. The capitalist, he starts some business, big factory. Ten thousand men are working, but the capitalist is not working. He is aloof from the factory. In a nice place, in a nice bungalow, garden house, he is enjoying. Similarly, God, Krishna, He is the enjoyer, aloof in Heaven. He is there with His elder brother, enjoying in the forest, sporting with His cowherd boy friends and girlfriends, His cows, calves. A big man, he is sitting at his home. With his family he’s enjoying. But he is managing many, many hundreds of factories sitting there. Big, big

business magnate, they do not come to the office, neither he goes to the factory. Simply by his order, telephone, “You do this,”; things are going on. So if it is possible materially that one ordinary man, he can manage hundreds of factories and offices without going there, simply by his order, so how much powerful is Krishna we have to imagine. The demigods, God’s secretaries manage. Just like demigod Indra: he’s managing the affairs of rains, how to collect the clouds, how to disperse them. In this way there is so much universal management. But all these managements are going on under the supreme management of Krishna, God in heaven.

7. Therefore, God exists.

The argument from manifestations

1. When you perform bhakti-yoga, the yoga of love, you will see God, also called Krishna or Govinda, the primeval Lord. He the first Father, who is tending cows, yielding all desire, in abodes built with spiritual gems, surrounded by millions of wish-fulfilling trees, always served with great reverence and affection by hundreds of thousands of lakshmis or gopis. The spiritual (cit) potency has built the spiritual world of transcendental gems. The cintamani which serves as material in the building of the abode of the Supreme Lord of Goloka, is a far rarer and more pleasing entity than the philosopher’s stone. The purpose tree yields only the fruits of piety, wealth, fulfilment of desire and liberation; but the purpose trees in the abode of Krishna bestow innumerable fruits in the shape of varieties divine love. Kama-dhenus (cows yielding the fulfilment of desire) give milk when they are milked; but the kama-dhenus of Goloka pour forth oceans of milk in the shape of the fountain of love showering transcendental bliss that does away with the hunger and thirst of all pure devotees, the liberated souls. Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with head decked with peacock’s feather, with the figure of beauty tinged with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique loveliness charming millions of Cupids. That flute by his enchanting musical sound attracts the hearts of all living beings. Just as a lotus petal produces a pleasant sight, so the two beautiful eyes of Krishna who causes the manifestation of our spiritual vision, display the unlimited splendour and beauty of His moon-like face.

The loveliness that adorns His head with peacock feather figures, the corresponding feature of the spiritual beauty of Krishna. Just as a mass of blue clouds offers a specifically soothing, pleasant view, the complexion of Krishna is analogously tinged with a spiritual dark-blue color. The beauty and loveliness of Krishna is far more enchanting than that of Cupid multiplied a million-fold. Govinda, the primeval Lord, round whose neck is swinging a garland of flowers beautified with the moon-locket, whose two hands are adorned with the flute and jewelled ornaments, who always revels in pastimes of love, spiritual amorous sports, whose graceful threefold-bending form of Syamasundara is eternally manifest. Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendour. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full- fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.

2. Therefore, God exists.

Argument from incredulity

1. How could God NOT exist? Nothing else can take His place.

2. Because there are 4 philosophies on the cause of all causes and effects. a. brahma-yjoti or light. This theory has no experiment to proof itself; light has never produced prebiotic material and life. In fact, light always is caused by a source of light and is never independent cause.

b. sunya or nothingness, nothing, zero. Absolute Nothingness doesn’t even exist, so zero for this theory.

c. Nature, Big Bang and Accident. Show us in a closed room experiment. If you say: “I bring in this experiment forces as are working in Nature”, then you proof Nature also has Persons creating forces.

d. God. Thus theory 4 or d is true. God is the cause of all causes and effects.

We can also positively prove this; we see in human history how humans create robots similar to humans, plastic flowers (not as good as Gods’ flowers), dummy  humans  cows  pigs,  heavens  or  paradises,  hells  or concentration camps or penalty colonies, planetariums. Similarly, God creates humans, plants, animals, Heaven, hell, the planetary systems.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The argument of the cosmic accordion

1. One physicist writes: “At the moment of this explosion – the Big Bang-

, the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Celsius and the universe was filled with light.”

2. Another added: “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”

3. Thus there is at the bottom of all the worlds

only chaos; no design, no purpose, voidness of any rational plan or guide, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.

4. Theist. But the effect is, as we see around us a wonderland, to state some:

a. The Earth and its gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If the Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, as in the case of the planet Mercury. If the Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

b. The Earth is located exactly the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature variations, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were further away from the sun, we would all freeze. And closer we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains at this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the surface of the Earth to be warmed and cooled every day, giving plants, animals and humans chance to be active and rest and recharge, so to keep the fragile material bodies going.

c. Our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its

gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans don’t spill over across the continents.

d. The human brain processing more than a million messages a second. The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles 1.5 million messages, simultaneously.

5. What caused all these wonderful creations? The theory of “Physical necessity” holds that there’s some, till now unknown, Theory of Everything (TOE) that would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe’s not being life-permitting. This “physical necessity” is extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. So, for example, the most promising candidate for a TOE to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, fails to predict uniquely our universe. String theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10^500 different possible universes governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary. With respect to this theory, Dawkins notes that Sir Martin Rees rejects this explanation, and Dawkins says, “I think I agree.” (To explain these “the constants and quantities”: when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. There are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe.)

6. Another, the theory of “blind chance”. There is a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape – the World Ensemble or multiverse-, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. An “unparsimonious extravagance,” Richard Dawkins states. But he retorts, “The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable.”

7. Each universe in the ensemble is not simple but is characterized by a multiplicity of independent constants and quantities. The issue is not the simplicity of the fundamental laws, for all the universes in the ensemble are characterized by the same laws—where they differ is in the values of the constants and quantities. Dawkins assumes that the simplicity of the whole is a function of the simplicity of the parts. This is a mistake.

The postulate of a World Ensemble may still be simple if there is a simple mechanism that through a repetitive process generates the many worlds. But mechanisms are made and operated by persons. If the universe entities all issue from a very simple fundamental mechanism, how this machine produces infinite, infinitely complicated huge universes. As a factory making 1000’s of types of breads, cakes, cookies etc.; there is a team of managers and workers.

8.  So  what  mechanisms  does  Dawkins  suggest  for  generating  such an infinite, randomly ordered World Ensemble? First, he suggests an oscillating model of the universe, according to which our time and space did indeed begin in a big bang, but this was just the latest in a long series of big bangs, each one initiated by the big crunch that terminated the previous universe in the series. Nobody understands what goes on in singularities such as the big bang, so it is proposed that the laws and constants are reset to new values, each time: “The old order changes, yielding its place to the new.” And somehow there may be some order again. Or there are proposals that history repeats itself.

9. a. 1000’s of types of breads, cakes, cookies, tarts etc from a bread factory means there is a group of builders, administrators and bakers. If the factory gets bombed in a war, a new factory can only come from a team of engineers, architects, contractors, managers, laborers etc. Similarly, the universe is 1000’s of works of creation.

b. God’s scriptures, the Vedas, the timeless scriptures of the East, state that this creation all the universes have different sizes. Generally, all the universes have the same size and are all inhabited. Sometimes, some universes are empty, as fruit trees have sometimes some deformed fruits. The creation evidently is for the sake of punishing the living entities, and making them suffer the pains of birth, disease, old age and death, to name the chief of the grinding wheel of birth and death for the reincarnating souls. God created the universe, merely to punish the erring living beings

for their misdeeds. It is the prison of heaven.

c. Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems “led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” The evidence of observational astronomy has been consistently against the hypothesis that the universe will someday recontract into a Big Crunch. Attempts to discover the mass density sufficient to generate the gravitational attraction required to halt and reverse the expansion continually came up short. In fact, recent observations of distant supernovae indicate that—far from slowing down—the  cosmic  expansion  is  actually  accelerating! There’s  some sort of mysterious “dark energy” in the form of either a variable energy field (called “quintessence”) or, more probably, a positive cosmological constant or vacuum energy that causes the expansion to proceed more rapidly.

If the dark energy does indicate the existence of a positive cosmological constant  (as  the  evidence  increasingly  suggests),  then  the  universe will expand forever. According to the NASA website of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, “For the theory that fits our data, the Universe will expand forever.” The thermodynamic properties of such oscillatory models imply the very beginning of the universe that their proponents sought to avoid. For entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such models, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle. As one scientific team explains, “The effect of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale, from cycle to cycle. . . . Thus, looking back in time, each cycle generated less entropy, had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor then the cycle that followed it.” Thus, as one traces the oscillations back in time, they become progressively smaller until one reaches a first and smallest oscillation. Zeldovich and Novikov therefore conclude, “The multicycle model has an infinite future, but only a finite past.” Astronomer Joseph Silk estimates on the basis of current entropy levels that the universe cannot have gone through more than 100 previous oscillations. This is far from sufficient to generate the sort of serial World Ensemble imagined by Dawkins. Even if the universe could oscillate from eternity past, such a universe would require an infinitely precise fine-tuning of initial conditions in order to persist through an infinite number of successive bounces. Thus, the mechanism Dawkins envisions for generating his many worlds is not simple but just the opposite.

d. If the oscillations of Bang-Crunch were always going on and do go on in the future ad infinitum -as the Vedas describe-, we must conclude that the Supreme Powerful Personality of Godhead and Lawmaker, against some laws of physics, as cited above, wills these expansions and contractions to go on.

e. Any universe in a state of overall cosmic expansion cannot be infinite in the past. This theorem applies to the multiverse, too. Therefore, since the multiverse’s past is finite, only a finite number of other worlds may have been generated by now, so there’s no guarantee that a finely-tuned world will have appeared in the ensemble. If our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since such things are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range of our world. Observable universes like those are simply much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us. We do not have such observations,

f. If bang-expansion-contraction-crunch cycles have been going on forever like a cosmic accordion, who operates the cosmic accordion? Each time expanding -contracting. Again and again “blind chance” doing incredible magic. This is beyond belief. Such a universe involves a fine- tuning of a very bizarre sort since the initial conditions have to be set at minus infinity in the past. But how could that be done if there was no beginning?

And, even this eternally playing cosmic accordion is created at intervals, starts playing and continues playing because of a designer and a musician.

10. The other theory is evolutionary cosmology of Smolin. He imagines a scenario, Dawkins explains, according to which daughter universes are born of parent universes, not in a fully fledged big crunch, but more locally in black holes. Smolin adds a form of heredity: The fundamental constants of a daughter universe are slightly “mutated” versions of the

constants of its parent. . . . Those universes which have what it takes to “survive” and “reproduce” come to predominate in the multiverse. “What it takes” includes lasting long enough to “reproduce.” Because the act of reproduction takes place in black holes, successful universes must have what it takes to make black holes. This ability entails various other properties. For example, the tendency of matter to condense into clouds and then stars is a prerequisite for making black holes. Stars also . . . are the precursors to the development of interesting chemistry, and hence life. So, Smolin suggests, there has been a Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, directly favouring the evolution of black hole fecundity and indirectly favouring the production of life.

11. a. Theist: Again a miracle of fine tuning. You think it is less miracle because of copying from the parents? How this copying is done? Who copies? Is there somewhere consciousness, god?

11. b. A fatal flaw in Smolin’s scenario is his assumption that universes fine-tuned for black-hole production would also be fine-tuned for the production of stable stars. In fact, the exact opposite is true: the most proficient producers of black holes would be universes that generate primordial black holes prior to star formation, so that life-permitting universes would actually be weeded out by Smolin’s cosmic evolutionary scenario. Thus, it turns out that Smolin’s scenario would actually make the existence of a life-permitting universe even more improbable. Speculations about the universe’s begetting “baby universes” via black holes have been shown to contradict quantum physics. The conjecture that black holes may be portals of wormholes through which bubbles of  false  vacuum  energy  can  tunnel  to  spawn  new  expanding  baby universes was the subject of a bet between Stephen Hawking and John Preskill, which Hawking in 2004 finally admitted that he had lost. The conjecture would require that information locked up in a black hole could be utterly lost forever by escaping to another universe. One of the last holdouts, Hawking finally came to agree that quantum theory requires that information is preserved in black hole formation and evaporation. The implications? “There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe. I’m sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes.” That means that Smolin’s scenario is physically impossible.

12. Dawkins holds out hope that “Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology.” But he admits that we don’t have it yet, nor does he deal with the formidable problems facing such an explanation of cosmic fine-tuning. Therefore, this hope represents nothing more than the faith of a naturalist. Dawkins insists that even in the absence of a “strongly satisfying” explanation for the fine-tuning in physics, still the “relatively weak” explanations we have at present are “self-evidently better than the self-defeating . . . hypothesis of an intelligent designer.”

13. Theist: If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these agents were or how they got there.

14. Dawkins challenges how a single, simple Creator can be behind the universes. He confuses the simplicity of a hypothesis with the simplicity of the entity described in the hypothesis Positing a complex cause to explain some effect can be a very simple hypothesis, especially when contrasted with rival hypotheses. Think, for example, of our archaeologists’ postulating a human fabricator to explain the arrowheads they discovered. A human being is a vastly more complex entity than an arrowhead, but the hypothesis of a human designer is a very simple explanation. It is certainly more simple than the hypothesis that the artifacts were the unintended result of a stampede– sudden wild rush– of buffalo that chipped a rock to look like an arrowhead, or the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis. Dawkins is plainly mistaken in his assumption that a divine Designer is just as complex an entity as the universe. As a pure, spiritual Supersoul, mind or consciousness, with a spiritual body, without a material body, God is a remarkably simple entity. A spiritual mind (or soul) is not a physical object composed of parts. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable

constants and quantities, a divine mind is amazingly simple. Dawkins protests, “A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple.” This is just confused. Certainly a mind may have complex ideas (it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus) and may be capable of doing complex tasks (such as controlling the trajectory of every particle in the universe), but the spiritual mind itself is a remarkably simple, non-physical entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind’s ideas and effects, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, the simplicity of an immaterial entity. This need not imply that this Divine Entity lacks distinct properties, like immateriality, self-consciousness, thinking, feeling, willing, character, power, beauty etc.

15. To assume that God has an intelligent designer gives rise to an infinite regress. In order to explain one ordered and complex system we must postulate another. This new system, however, will then require a further designer, and so on ad infinitum. If one ordered and complex system requires another, then there must be an infinite number of ordered and complex systems. Clearly this is absurd; we must stop the regress somewhere. At some point, we must be justified in holding that an ordered and complex system needs no explanation, that it simply exists and that is the end. Atheists stop at the universe.

On  this  “regress  ad  infinitum”, Aristotle,  in  his  “On  the  motion  of animals.” Wrote: “In the world of the senses it is frankly impossible to execute a movement when there is nothing standing still. There must be something immovable by which that what is moved is moving, by leaning on it. If something would always give way (as is the case with a mouse who walks on a mountain of grain or a human being climbing a hill of sand or tries to walk through quicksand), then progress would be impossible. Also there would be no walking if the ground is not standing still or there would be no flying or swimming if the air and the sea did not offer resistance. What is immovable cannot be part of that what is moving, otherwise there is no movement.” (from Aristotle, in his “On the motion of animals.”)

15. b. Atheist. Rather than postulating a Creator God, we should simply admit that we cannot explain the origin of the universe. One atheist described the universe as a “brute fact”, as something the existence of which must be accepted but which needs no explanation.

“We cannot explain the appearance of design in the circumstances of the Big Bang, or in the laws of physics. Sometimes improbable events do occur; there is no need to postulate design just because something odd happened.

In a lottery, for example, there are millions of possible combinations of balls that could be drawn. Each one of those combinations is equally likely (or unlikely). Yet one of them must be drawn.”

16. Theist: But, who moves the balls, who draws the balls.

Speaking of chance: If a used pack of cards is opened, then there are many different ways in which the cards might be ordered. They are no less likely to be ordered in ascending value suit-by-suit than they are to be ordered in any other way. If they are ordered in ascending value suit- by-suit, though, then we will infer that they were deliberately placed in that order. We do so because there’s something special about this order. It may be no less likely than any other order, but it suggests design where other arrangements of the cards would not.

17.  It is simpler and ultimate, to postulate an unlimited, all-pervading force or force-giving person, moving the balls or atoms of the universe, than a limited force. If one postulates a limited force then one is postulating two things, the force and whatever constrains it. If one postulates an unlimited force, then one is only postulating one thing, the force; there is, by definition, nothing that constrains an infinite force.

18. The theories of “physical necessity” and “blind chance” all are insufficient as explanations. Why do they talk something which is not within their experience, nobody’s experience? Because they have no such experience, why do they say something which is not within their experience? What is the meaning of that talk? You cannot get more out of less. The principle of causality is violated.

19a. Just like in a classroom, the teacher is the supreme person, amongst his students. Similarly, in the state there is a supreme person, the president or the prime minister. Everywhere you will find one supreme person. Without a supreme person, an order-giving person, nothing can

be managed. This is everlastingly true, and you cannot avoid this. Even in Communist countries, they also have the supreme person, a dictator.

19. b. So, taking the whole universal affair, nature, how things are going on; the sun is rising early in the morning. It is setting. Then the moon is coming. Everything in this big, big planetary system, is working very systematically. The astronomical calculation is so perfect that, they say, one ten-thousandth part of a second is also calculated. So accurately things are moving. Thus the material nature is also working under somebody.

19. c. Just like when you go on the street you see red light and green light. As soon as you see red light you stop your car. So this red light and green light is being manipulated by some officer, and he is working under the government.

19. d. Similarly, this whole material nature is acting like red light or green light, but behind that red light and green light there is the supreme brain. That is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So as a layman or as child cannot understand how the red light and blue light, green light, is working. He sees simply and he thinks automatically it is being done. That is foolishness. It is not being automatically done. There is a machine and  there  is  manipulator  behind  this  red  light. This  is  intelligence. Anyone who is concluding that “On the street the red light and green light is working automatically; there is no brain behind it,” he’s a rascal. Similarly, the whole material cosmic manifestation is working, the planets are rotating in their orbits at high speeds by the order of somebody. That is Govinda, Krishna or the Supreme Person, Bhagavan. Bhaga means six kinds of opulences: the richest, the most powerful, the wisest, the most beautiful, and the most influential, and the most renounced at the same time. Renounced because, just like this whole cosmic manifestation is created by the will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but you will not find him here. He is disinterested. Many millions of universes are working by His will, but He is not interested. The example is just like a big capitalist. He has got many factories, and if you go to the factory— take for example the Tata iron factory, you will find huge factories going on, but Mr. Tata is not there. But things are going on. Similarly, all cosmic manifestations are going on under the will of Krishna. But He is not present here. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gita, mat-sthani sarva- bhutani: “Everything is resting on Me.” In any factory, every worker knows that the whole factory function is resting on that supreme person. So for the universe mat-sthani sarva-bhutani naham tesu avasthitah: “I am not there.”  Bhagavan means that. Under His will, under His power, everything is working so nicely, systematically, but if you want to see God, Krishna, you cannot see Him. He is not there. He is in Goloka Vrndavana, dancing, playing on His flute, loving, but His influence is so extensive that even without His personal presence, things are going on so nicely. This is called Bhagavan or Godhead.

20. God exists.

The argument of the only conclusive explanation

to the great mystery of creation - the existence of the original source of mystic power, God,

who is the storehouse of mystic power

1. The noted biologist W. H. Thorpe writes, “We may be faced with a possibility that the origin of life, like the origin of the universe, becomes an impenetrable barrier to science and a block which resists all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.”

Theodisius Dobzhansky, another prominent advocate of evolution, agreed: “Our scientific knowledge is, of course, quite insufficient to give anything like satisfactory accounts of these transitions [from no life to life, from no mind to mind]… W. H. Thorpe and Jacques Monod (he got the Nobel Prize in 1965. He says that everything started by chance—that by chance certain chemicals combined and formed the basic molecules.) agree that the origin of life is a difficult and thus far intractable and unsolved problem.” Dobzhansky goes on to call the origin of life “miraculous.”

Nobel  prize-winning  physicist  Eugene  Wigner  has  shown  that  the probability of the existence of a self-duplicating unit is zero. Since the ability to reproduce is one of the fundamental characteristics of all living organisms, Wigner concludes that our present understanding of physics and chemistry does not enable us to explain the phenomenon of life. Herbert Yockey has demonstrated by information theory that even a single informational molecule such as cytochrome c (what to speak of complex organisms) could not have arisen by chance in the estimated lifetime of the earth: “One must conclude that, contrary to the established

and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”

2. Darwin said there must be a natural selection. But selection means choice. So who is choosing?

That must be a person. Who is allowing someone to survive and someone to be killed? There must be some authority with discretion to give such an order. That is our first proposition. Who that authority is, is explained in Bhagavad-gita. Krishna says, mayadhyakshena prakritih: “Nature is working under My supervision.” (Bg. 9.10)

They say that life is produced by chemical laws.

As soon as there is a law, we must take into consideration that someone made the law.

3. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. And the original life is Krishna.

4.  The  scientific method  includes  observation,  hypothesis  and  then demonstration. Then  it  is  perfect.  But  the  scientists  cannot  actually demonstrate in their laboratories that life comes from matter.

5. Theist. [holding a rose in his hand]. Can any scientist create a flower like this in the laboratory? That is not possible. Just see how wonderfully Krishna’s energy is working! No scientist can create a flower like this in his laboratory. How have they created anything? They take the sand and mix it with some chemicals and make glass. They have not created the sand or the chemicals; they have taken them from the earth. They say, “We have taken the materials from nature.” “From nature” means from a person. They have taken from nature, but they are thieves because everything in nature belongs to Krishna. Isavasyam idam sarvam: “Everything is God’s creation.”

6. There is a scientific journal called Nature. It contains articles concerning natural products like plants, flowers and minerals, but it does not mention God.

We may rightly observe that plants are being produced by nature. But the next question we must ask is, “Who has produced the natural products?” Nature is not working automatically; it is under the control of Krishna. The material elements are not creative! Only the soul is creative. Life cannot be created from matter, and matter cannot create itself. You, a living entity, can mix hydrogen and oxygen to create water. But matter itself has no creative potency. If you place a bottle of hydrogen near a bottle of oxygen, will they automatically combine, without your help? No. They must be mixed. Oxygen and hydrogen are Krishna’s inferior energy, but when you, the superior energy, mix them, then they can become water. Inferior energy has no power unless superior energy is involved. This sea [indicating the Pacific Ocean] is calm and quiet. But when the superior force, air, pushes it, it manifests high waves. The ocean has no power to move without the superior force of the air. Similarly, there is another force superior to the air, and another and another, until ultimately we arrive at Krishna. This is real research. Krishna controls nature just as an engineer controls a train. The engineer controls the locomotive, which pulls one car, and that car in turn pulls another, which pulls another, and so the whole train is moving. Similarly, with the creation, Krishna gives the first push, and then, by means of successive pushes, the entire cosmic manifestation comes into being and is maintained. This is explained in Bhagavad-gita (9.10). Mayadhyakshena prakritih suyate sacaracaram: “This material nature is working under My direction and is producing all moving and unmoving beings.” And in the Fourteenth Chapter  [Bg.

14.4] Krishna says:

sarva-yonishu kaunteya murtayah sambhavanti yah tasam brahma mahad yonir aham bija-pradah pita

“All species of life are made possible by birth in this material nature, O son of Kunti, and I am the seed-giving father.” For example, if we sow a banyan seed, a huge tree eventually comes up and, along with it, millions of new seeds. Each of these seeds can in turn produce another tree with millions of new seeds, and so on. This is how Krishna, the original seed- giving father, is the primary cause of everything we see.

7. Material energy can never work independently; it must first come in contact with spiritual energy. So how can people accept that the entire cosmic manifestation, which is nothing but matter, has come about automatically? A competent machine does not work unless a man who knows how to work it pushes a button. A Cadillac is a nice car, but if it has no driver, what is the use of it? So the material universe is also a machine.

People are amazed at seeing a big machine with many, many parts, but an intelligent person knows that however wonderful a machine may be, it does not work unless an operator comes and pushes the proper button. Therefore, who is more important—the operator or the machine? So we are concerned not with the material machine—this cosmic manifestation—but with its operator, Krishna. Now you may say, “Well, how do I know that He is the operator?” Krishna says, mayadhyakshena prakritih suyate sacaracaram: [Bg. 9.10] “Under My direction the whole cosmic manifestation is working.” If you say, “No, Krishna is not the operator behind the cosmos,” then you have to accept another operator, and you must present him. But this you cannot do. Therefore, in the absence of your proof, you should accept mine.

Everything works on the basis of this living force. The Pacific Ocean, and these high waves are being manipulated by living force. An airplane is flying, but is it flying undirected? Someone is directing it.

Everything is working under someone’s direction. Why do the rascal scientists deny this? The airplane is a big machine, but it is flying under the direction of a small spiritual spark, the pilot. Scientists cannot prove that this big 747 airplane could fly without the small spiritual spark. So, as the small spiritual spark soul can direct a large plane, the big spiritual soul directs the whole cosmic manifestation.

8. The scientists say that life begins from chemicals. But the real question is, “Where have the chemicals come from, who manufactured them?” The chemicals come from life, and this means that life has mystic powers. For example, an orange tree contains many oranges, and each orange contains chemicals—citric acid and others. So where have these chemicals come from? Obviously they have come from the life within the tree.

The scientists are missing the origin of the chemicals, found in the atmosphere, in the water, in humans, in animals and in the earth. They have started their investigation from the chemicals, but they cannot identify the origin of the chemicals. Chemicals come from the supreme life—God. Just as the living body of a man produces many chemicals, the supreme life (the Supreme Lord) is producing all the chemicals in the universe. And that is called mystic power. Unless the mystic power of the Lord is accepted, there is no solution to the problem of the origin of life. I cannot even explain how my fingernail is growing out of my

finger; it is beyond the power of my brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable potency, acintya-sakti. So if acintya-sakti exists in an ordinary human being, imagine how much acintya-sakti God possesses. The difference between God and me is that although I have the same potencies as God, I can produce only a small quantity of chemicals, whereas He can produce enormous quantities. I can produce a little water in the form of perspiration, but God can produce the seas….. In God there is great mystic potency. God’s mystic potency is working swiftly, exactly like an electric machine. Some machines operate by electrical energy, and they are so nicely made that all the work is done simply by pushing a button. Similarly, God said, “Let there be creation,” and there was creation. Considered in this way, the workings of nature are not very difficult to understand. God has such wonderful potencies that the creation, on His order alone, immediately takes place. Where does a bird’s power to fly come from? Both you and the bird are living entities, but the bird can fly because of its acintya-sakti, and you cannot. To give another example, semen is produced from blood. A man has mystic power in his body so that because he is sexually inclined, blood is transformed into semen. How is this done unless there is some mystic power involved? There are many mystic powers in the living entities. The cow eats grass and produces milk. Everyone knows this, but can you take some grass and produce milk? Can you? Therefore there is mystic power within the cow. As soon as the cow eats grass, she can transform it into milk. Men and women are basically the same, but as a man you cannot eat food and produce milk, although a woman can. These are mystic powers. Scientists would say that there are different enzymes or chemicals inside different types of bodies and that these account for the cow’s producing milk. But who produced those enzymes and that arrangement? That was done by mystic power. You cannot make these enzymes or that arrangement. You cannot produce milk from dry grass in your laboratory. Within your body, by mystic power, you can transform food into blood and tissue, but in your laboratory, without mystic power, you cannot even transform grass into milk. Therefore you must accept the existence of mystic power.

In the Bhagavad-gita (10.8) Krishna says, aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate: “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” Unless we accept this statement from God, there is no conclusive explanation to the origin of material nature. God cannot be understood without accepting the existence of mystic power, but if you understand God scientifically, then you will understand everything. The scientists start from one point—but where does that point come from? That they do not know, in spite of vast research. One has to accept that the original source is God, who is full of all mystic powers and from whom everything emanates. He Himself says in the Bhagavad-gita, aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate: “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” [Bg. 10.8] Our conclusions are not based on blind faith; they are most scientific. Matter comes from life. In life—in the origin—there are unlimited material resources; that is the great mystery of creation. If you drop a needle, it will fall immediately, but a bird weighing several pounds can float in the air. We must establish the origin of this floating. If we study nature, we find that every living entity has some mystic power. A man cannot live within the water for more than a few hours, yet a fish lives there continuously. Is that not mystic power?

It is mystic power for me, but not for the fish, because mystic power is not uniformly distributed. But all the mystic powers exist in God, the origin of everything. I derive some of His mystic power, you derive some, and the birds derive some. But the storehouse of mystic power is God.

There are eight basic types of mystic powers. Some of them are laghima (by which one can become lighter than a feather), mahima (by which one can become bigger than a mountain), prapti (which enables one to capture anything he likes) and isitva (by which one can completely subdue and control another being). Another type of mystic power can be seen in the sun, because from the sunshine innumerable things are inexplicably produced. Unless the scientists accept the existence of mystic power, they cannot explain these phenomena. Natural phenomena such as the law of gravity or weightlessness are acintya-sakti, inconceivable energies, and real science means to understand this acintya-sakti. To observe a chain of events only from a certain point in time is unscientific and gives only incomplete knowledge. We must know where things begin. If we carry our investigation far enough, we will find that the origin of nature is acintya-sakti. For example, with brain, brush and color we can paint a flower. But we cannot conceive how vegetation throughout the whole earth is automatically growing and fructifying. We can explain the painted flower, but we cannot explain the real flower. Scientists actually cannot explain biological growth. They simply juggle words like molecule and chromosome, but they cannot actually explain the phenomena….. We find a certain quantity of chemicals in my body, a smaller quantity in an ant’s body, and a greater quantity in an elephant’s body. So, if I can create so many more chemicals than an ant, and an elephant can create so many more chemicals than I can, then just think how many more chemicals God can create! This is the basis on which scientists should consider how hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. Otherwise, they cannot identify the source of the vast quantities of hydrogen and oxygen required to make the oceans. But we can. This hydrogen and oxygen exist in the virat-rupa, the universal body of the Lord. Why do the scientists fail to understand this plain truth? Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form the water in the seas. We both accept this fact. But the scientists are surprised to hear that the origin of this huge quantity of hydrogen and oxygen is actually acintya-sakti, or the inconceivable mystic power of the Lord.

9. There is an energizing source of the all-pervading mystic powers. Krishna is the source of all causes and effects, the original thinking, feeling and willing, and ultimately the only source of power.

“In the world of the senses it is frankly impossible to execute a movement when there is nothing standing still. There must be something immovable by which that what is moved is moving, by leaning on it. If something would always give way (as is the case with a mouse who walks on a mountain of grain or a human being who is climbing a hill of sand or tries to walk through quicksand), then progress would be impossible. Also there would be no walking if the ground is not standing still or there would be no flying or swimming if the air and the sea did not offer resistance. What is immovable cannot be part of that what is moving, otherwise there is no movement.” (from Aristotle)

10. Krishna is not only an unmoved mover.

Srila Jiva Goswami describes in the Sri Paramatma Sandarbha a universal law:

karanasyaivamsena karansya karyam karana-dharmasya sarvamsenaivanugatam

(karana means cause, amsa means part): “The cause is present in the effect and is partly manifested as the effect and the cause has more perfection then the effect.”

For example, the sun has more heat and light than the sunshine.

The more subtle the cause, then the cause doesn’t loose by expanding an effect or amsa , as for example a composer of music or a dreamer. A composer of music who is making in a certain period, a number of pieces of music, can make more in the future. He had and keeps them also in him.

So he is and has thus more than the total of his creations.

Similarly, God is quantitative and qualitative more than this world (His creation). And, just as an artist develops his talents or a perfectionist who always wants to improve everything, so goes the spiritual energy from perfect to more perfect and still more perfect etc.

Thus, Krishna expands always. The original cause or the creator of the universe does not decrease by an emanation; we see the creation and maintenance of the universe go on continuously and undiminished. So karanasyaivamsena karanasya means that the cause and the creator of the universe has everything of this created energy, in exceeding extent and therefore there is in the Visnu Purana (6.5.47) the following definition of God, Sri Krishna Bhagavan:

aisvaryasya samagrasya viryasya yasasah sriyah jnana-vairagyayays caiva sannam bhaga itingana

Unlimited wealth, power, fame, beauty, knowledge and detachment - are the six main perfections of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The most complete name of God, the creator and the unmoved or original mover, is Krishna. Krishna means the All-Attractive, the unlimitedly perfect in all qualities which we find in the creation, for example: beauty, wisdom, power, wealth, pleasure, love.

11. Thus, the cause of the “Big Bang”, the original source of the emanation of matter, can’t be just ‘particles’, just starting to move. One can’t give what one doesn’t have. The cause must be greater then the effect.

12. Just as a king establishes places of residents of his different subjects, where he reserves the best residence for himself, in the same way the Supreme Personality of Godhead establishes the residences of the demigod Brahma, His expansion for the creation of the material world, and all other living entities within the universe, whereas His own residence is the best, for it is above (param) the influence of the material, inferior energy.

13. God, Krishna, Yogesvara, the controller of all mystic power, the Supreme Mystic, behind all the mysteries of creation, exists. He lives in the spiritual world.