1 of 6

First published: 17:47, 2nd October 2014

How Can You Say That God Does Not Exist, Stephen

Hawking?

There is no dichotomy between true religion and true science

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

As above, so below

When I first red the Dan Brown novel, Angels and Demons, which takes as its

theme the resolution of the conflict between God and Science, I was an atheist.

When the hero's sexy companion Vittoria Vetra, a scientist working on particle physics at CERN claims there is no conflict between the two, I laughed. I laughed at the transparent desperate grasping of straws by religious types to

justify their world-view in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

When I read the book again five years later as a man of faith, I remembered my

previous scepticism as an atheist. For this time round, I wholly accepted the

notion that science was only an attempt to understand the 'mind of God'. For no

matter how far science explains the How, it virtually never touches on the Why,

the Wherefore or the Where From.

Indeed, when science is developed and used to understand God's Creation and

the nature of God Himself, it aids our spiritual understanding and helps us to

make enormous leaps on the journey, as I can personally testify from my own

experience.

For example, the concept that the same electron can co-exist in two different

parts of the Universe simultaneously mirrors (and resolves) the apparently

conflicting concepts of God within and God without.

The fact that electrons behave in a more orderly fashion when they 'know' they

are being observed serves as a warning to those humans who misbehave that:

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

Hawking: his role in the Divine Plan

I mention all this because Professor Stephen Hawking has reportedly told Spanish

newspaper, El Mundo, that: There is no God, after headlining at the Starmus Festival on the Spanish island of Tenerife. In an exclusive interview, Hawking

said he was an atheist because: 'Religion believes in miracles but these arent compatible with science'.

Ironically, it is only by virtue of a miracle the will of God transcending the usual rules of our physical world that the author of bestseller, A Brief History of Time, is still alive. When Hawking was 21, he was diagnosed with motor neurone

disease. Doctors gave him two years to live in line with the general life expectancy of those who contract this terrible and debilitating disease. So God

has -- so far -- spared Hawking from the slow and painful death by asphyxiation as the muscles in the lungs and chest cease to work associated with it.

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

2 of 6

I know though why God has kept the ungrateful Hawkins alive for all these years.

It was so he could play a part and a vital part at that in the journey of the Messiah to realise his destiny. In late-2004, I was looking into the esoteric, the

name given to the study of 'the secret' said to be encoded in ancient documents

like the Bible and protected by societies like the Egyptian mystery schools; the

Knights Templar; the Rosicrucians; and latterly the Freemasons in the higher 'red' degrees at least, which include titles like:

the 'Royal Arch of Enoch'

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

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

In this study, I kept coming across something called 'Qabalah' (sometimes

transliterated from the Hebrew as 'Kabbalah' or 'Cabala'). At the time, I was as usual struggling to make ends meet. I couldn't afford to buy books so was reliant on the selection at Maldon Lending Library.

Obviously, there wasn't much of a section on esoteric knowledge so I kept

making a mental note to order a couple of interesting titles I had seen on the

subject, the next time I was in the library. Unfortunately I kept forgetting to do

so until the right moment came.

A Brief History of Mine

At the time, I had just read A Brief History of Time, which was then spending a

record 237 weeks on the bestseller list. Having struggled to comprehend the

work, I returned it to Maldon Library. It was on that visit that The Power of

Kabbalah leapt out at me from the shelves.

When I read it, I found the same core concepts of Creation in the Qabalah that I

had found in Hawkings research:

Quantum Physics Qabalah

The physical universe begins with

the explosion of a single atom,

from which all energy comes

Creation begins with the flash of

Zion, leading to God in

Everything

There are ten possibly eleven

dimensions

There are ten spheres attached

to the Tree of Life and a disc,

Darth, which sits below it

The universe is one to five per cent

observable. The rest is dark matter.

Our realm is one per cent light,

99 per cent darkness

At the time, this was the most exciting hot new intelligence I had ever heard. For

although I had been an atheist for around 40 years my 'forty days in the wilderness' I had always been looking for evidence of some kind of higher power because I was so scared of death. The trouble was, I found the accounts

given by most religious types to be unconvincing and often self-righteous and

condescending. When I asked them where Heaven was, they had no explanation.

Now, quantum mechanics had answered my question: Heaven was clearly in the

other dimensions which both quantum physics and Qabalah agree were collapsed shortly after the Big Bang/the Flash of Zion. (On closer study of the

3 of 6

Tree, I realised that the sphere transliterated as 'Hod' could be transliterated as

'Heav-ed'. Some years later, when voyaging on Iboga, I went there and saw the

souls!).

I cannot describe the euphoric joy I felt on finally being able to have proved to

me there was existence beyond the four dimensions we perceive with our senses.

In Qabalistic terms, I had 'pierced the first veil'.

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

the Universe (rather than the Universe being a condition of space-time). To me,

that is the closest science will ever come to proclaiming: 'There is a God'. I have

also read theories which aim to deal with the central question raised by the

existence of the original atom from which all energy comes, which is: 'Where

does that atom come from?'

Before Creation: God without Form

Of course, the Antients had an answer to this. It comes from a god without form.

Since it lives 'outside' physical Creation, then it exists outside time in 'no-

thing(ness)'. Because this god exists outside time, it has always been there and

always will be. In recent years, physicists have begun to grapple with this

concept of 'the void' known to the Greeks as 'Chaos' identifying different types of nothing, like the vacuum or the black hole.

My immediate response to this new-found hope was to wonder how the Qabalists

had known this for many thousands of years, when modern physicists had only

just come across these concepts. As a result, I went on the journey: I made the

decision to believe there was some kind of benevolent force guiding and shaping

us all.

Since then, I have never looked back.

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

come to understand better the nature of the One True God, Jesus, and His and

my place in Creation. Indeed, no true man of reason would ever say: 'There is no

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

Of course, only the universal supreme arbiter of absolute truth would be in a

position to say: 'There is no God' as opposed to the more rationally correct: 'I don't believe in God' or 'There is no evidence for the existence of God, I believe'.

Since the absolute arbiter of truth would be the Supreme Being (aka God

Almighty) then he is unlikely to say: 'There is no God'!

Indeed, it is the very height of egotistical self-evaluation to claim that you can

make such a statement, wrongly confusing observable fact and speculative

opinion.

On the other hand, the genuinely spiritual being is all to aware that he sees little

of the totality of Creation and is therefore unlikely to develop the kind of rigid

ideological mindset that bedevils so many scientific extremists like Richard

Dawkin and now, Stephen Hawking.

In his defence, Hawking does not actually say: 'There is no God', although that is

the gist of his words. According to El Mundo, he said: Before we understood science, it was a natural belief that God created the Universe. But now science

offers a more convincing explanation', before adding that he was therefore 'an

atheist'.

As pointed out above, science has yet to convincingly explain where the

original atom came from, which exploded in the Big Bang.

4 of 6

But then again, although popular and a household name to boot Hawking is not rated as one of the finest minds of the world of quantum mechanics. When

his fellow physicists came to rate the great minds in their field of the twentieth

century, Hawking did not even come in the top twenty.

The No Evidence Fallacy and Intelligent Design

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

wise man knows, this is a rational fallacy

There is no evidence of the existence of my great-great-great-great-great-great-

great grandfather but he must have existed because I exist now and human

beings are only created through the normal methods of intercourse, fertilisation

and birth (unless you wish to postulate that my great-great-great-great-great-

great grandfather (his son) was born by immaculate conception!).

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

Although you can never prove His existence, scientists have found evidence of

'intelligent design' or the 'invisible hand', as it was known before the 'Enlightenment' in Creation. Although an atheist, the former Astronomer Royal, Fred Hoyle whose school Hawking wished to join at Cambridge University for his PhD -- famously remarked that without panspermia:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is

comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard

might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

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

Life cannot have had a random beginning The trouble is that there are

about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a

random trial is only one part in 1040,000

, an outrageously small probability

that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic

soup.

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

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

To avoid using any phrase which might indicate the existence of God, scientists

also call this concept 'the fine-tuned Universe'. It states that the conditions that

allow the elements, matter and life to exist in the Universe can only happen with

certain universal fundamental physical constants which themselves lie within an

extremely narrow range.

In his book, Just Six Numbers, current Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, argues

that six numbers constitute a recipe for the Creation of the Universe. If any one

of the numbers were different 'even to the tiniest degree, there would be no

stars, no complex elements, no life.'

These parameters are so precise that they support the existence of an intelligent

guiding hand, shepherding Creation as opposed to a load of random events which

led to the Creation of elements, then galaxies, then stars, then planets, then

somehow the evolution of life and above all us, self-consciously intelligent beings.

5 of 6

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

If it were 0.01 less, then only hydrogen could exist, meaning

there would be no other elements to form galaxies, stars and

planets.

If it were 0.01 higher, hydrogen wouldn't exist shortly after

the Big Bang. Again, if there is no hydrogen, there can be no

other physical elements, including carbon, of which we are

made.

When we combine all the odds together of these narrow parameters coming

together, the fact we are here at all seems nothing short of a miracle! Or rather

some guiding force must be making each stage of Creation fall within these

narrow constraints so the next stage can happen.

The Multiverse and misplaced faith

Militant atheist scientists have of course come up with an answer to this: the

'multi-verse'. Under this concept, we live in just one world of physical 'laws'.

Other parts of the 'multi-verse' will exist under their own set of equally narrow

but different parameters perhaps creating non-carbon-based life forms.

Of course, there is not one scrap of evidence for this 'multi-verse'. As such, it

requires a leap of faith as great if not greater than a belief in the One True God himself.

That has not stopped the man who once starred in Star Trek and The

Simpsons setting himself up as the prophet of this new popular science concept.

Since 2010, Hawking has used his public profile to attack religion and philosophy

and endorse the 'multi-verse'. In 2011, in an interview entitled: 'There is no

Heaven', he responded to the Guardian's questions about this odd position with

the following words:

The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can't

solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective

theory of Darwinian natural selection of those Societies most likely to

survive. We assign them a higher value.

Without wishing to sound cruel and heartless, one wonders whether the machine

which acts as his voice was on the blink that day. We might also wonder the

same about his recent proclamation to the Daily Mail that researchers enquiring

into the Higgs Boson or 'God particle' might stress it out, thus destroying the

Universe.

Certainly, other physicists have taken him to task for his 'revelation' regarding

the multiverse because it is not based on sound scientific evidence or analysis.

Twenty years ago, relevantly qualified climate scientists were challenging the

myth of 'man-made global warming' but that didn't stop it taking off (although it

has now been quietly replaced with 'climate change' as the former cannot be

justified by the science).

Once you understand the nature of the god without form, from which Creation

comes endless and infinite, timeless and eternal -- you will realise there is no room for a 'multi-verse' because all '-verses' will go back to the One, the Source,

precisely because it is infinite and eternal.

Strangely, the concept of the 'multi-verse' has only been pushed since the wider

spiritual awakening of human beings began about ten to fifteen years ago and the

re-discovery of the always-existing (Common or Natural or God's) Law as the way

6 of 6

to liberate ourselves from the oppression of the banksters; their draconian

legislation; and psychopathic foreign policy.

Gods Atheistic Covenant

The Law's commandment to 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself' means

you can only be held to account for causing harm, loss or injury to your fellow

man rather than for simply not following the rules, as happened to me at my trial

in 2002.

Note well all you atheists that this is an atheistic covenant with man as it does

not mention God.

So when it comes to man's legislation versus the Law, to my mind there is no

contest. For example, man-made rules and regulations continue to prohibit

marijuana, the 'Lord's plant' as it is referred to in the Tanakh, or the Old Testament even though there is now overwhelming evidence to indicate that it cures cancer; provides perfect nutrition for a human being; and is a carbon-

neutral, calorific fuel that could power our cars, homes and industry.

That is why, I believe, we are seeing increasingly vehement and absurd attacks

on God and His existence. The dark elite want to abolish the Law by abolishing

God. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Man.

In fact, the universal equation that quantum physicists are striving to establish

has already been promoted for at least two millennia by the Bible. It is

'Love=Law', which unlike Isaac Newton's 'laws' has no exceptions and is therefore

by reason, Law. The exceptions to Newton's 'laws' of, for example, motion at the

very large and very small levels in quantum mechanics proves they are rules.

As I've already stated in this article, I've voyaged to 'Heaven' so I know it exists.

I also voyaged to 'parallel universes' as they are sometimes called, although a

better phrase would be 'parallel alternative outcomes'. I accessed them through

the sphere of Netzach on the Tree of Life, which could be transliterated as 'Nexc',

indicating '(What's) Next'.

I also communicate with Jesus, the One True God but not the only god -- on a daily basis so I know He exists. To those who think this is simply my own

consciousness, I say: 'How does He/It teach me things I do not know?'

Of course, as any philosopher will tell you, you can't prove a negative. To prove

that 'God' doesn't exist, you would have to prove that something else created the

atom that exploded in the Big Bang. But couldn't we then argue that anything

which can create something out of nothing must be 'God' anyway?

If you could prove the existence of God, then it would no longer be a matter of

faith. And as any true believer knows, faith can move mountains in a way that intellectualism simply cannot. It is therefore a shame that Professor Hawking has

revealed himself to be a 'learned' rather than a 'wise' man.

So Stephen, just because Jesus chooses not to talk to you doesn't mean He

doesn't exist. It is more likely to mean that He no longer considers you worthy of

protection. But that can change with a simple decision on your part to want to

believe in God because ironically 'Believing is seeing', not the other way round as the 'great god science', has it.

But isn't it better to spend a life standing up for truth, justice and law even if

there is no God and therefore no prospect of redemption which is ironically what God demands of you than it is to conform to and support a tyrannical, hypocritical society which thinks nothing of the consequences of manufactured

war, false-flag terrorism and torture and uses a perverted from of science to

justify its macabre ends.