What would you say if I told you of science’s desperate need for a Creator? Those greatest atheists who are truly honest and brilliant minds, ultimately must face the dichotomy in which man finds himself.
Merely not knowing the ‘answer to everything’ is no real problem.
‘Why and how we are here’ can remain unanswered.
But when we discover scientific contradictions and anomalies – suggesting our world should not exist and contradicting the stability of the universe, we must at the very least re-examine these.
This is the true problem that the most advanced minds have.
In pure science our world cannot exist or continue.
Stephen Weinberg and the Pointless Universe
Stephen Weinberg, the Nobel prize winning physicist and mathematician is a perfect example.
A man of rigorous logic and great compassion, he viewed the world with a mixture of, I feel, puzzlement and disappointment.
He hoped for a quiet corner of our horrific jungle in which we can create an island of kindness and goodness.
He does not explain why we should do this, except for our own comfort.
His words were, ‘The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of our research, there is at least some consolation in the research itself… The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.”
And he expands on this by suggesting that in a universe governed by impersonal laws, humans must construct a “little island of profit and goodness.”
How tragic that he lacked the evidence of Sinai that his great grandfather had received from his father, and he from his…
Science’s Need For a Creator: Conundrum of Knowledge and Values
But, faced with the conundrum, he is very honest about our lack of knowledge and absolutely correctly insists that this is not reason for inventing religion.
Yet he still rather wistfully wants a world of worthy values even though he insists that there is nowhere from which we can learn them – except ‘survival altruism’ – I help those who help me survive and they mirror this.
And Weinberg was very honest about our ignorance about how our world can continue.
We mention that ‘constants’ – laws – which control our world seem inexplicable and at odds often with our science.
There is one – the alpha constant – that is a rogue ‘inconstant’ constant that puzzles the scientific community.
It cannot exist.
We cannot exist.
It does.
We do (I think).
Paul Dirac on the Origin of Life
First, let me quote an earlier determined atheist, who was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge and Nobel Prize winner in 1933.
He was called Paul Dirac.
His brilliance alarmed Einstein amongst many others and his text on quantum mechanics of 1930 is still one of the standard college books.
He often mocked the concept of any deity yet he actually wrote, when considering our present topic:
‘(If) life … has happened only once among all the planets…it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life.’
The relevance of this isolated quote will soon become apparent.
Science’s Need For a Creator: Dirac’s Large Numbers Hypothesis
In the 1940s this treasonously honest, but unfortunately highly-regarded, physicist started trouble – real trouble.
First, he isolated ratios of numbers appearing again and again in the natural world.
Then, disgustingly, he asked an awkward question.
This was that we ‘know’ that:- i) the universe is expanding; ii) the size of the smallest bricks of our universe – electrons, protons, neutrons – remain the same size; iii) the ratio of the size of the universe to these bricks must have altered over time because the former has grown and the latter remained static.
Thus the ratio cannot be a constant.
Ergo, the most important ‘large numbers’ governing the universe reflecting this ratio must have changed and must be inconstant.
He dared to suggest that there is non-constancy built into our world.
This ‘large numbers hypothesis’ was reaffirmed in the 1960s in Dirac’s work on cosmology and, even though it is an uncomfortable theory, today some of the greatest regard it more plausible than other notions.
The Alarming Effect on Radioactive Decay and Radiometric Dating
Far more alarming is the effect of this non-constancy on the rate of radioactive decay itself and therefore radiometric dating.
The very interaction of the electrons and forces within the atom – which is at the heart of the radioactivity itself – is meant to be controlled by an absolute constant – ‘the fine structure constant’.
This is mentioned above and known to its friends as ‘alpha’.
If you are a theoretical physicist, especially a nervous one, alpha is one of your few reasons for remaining sane.
Alpha underpins your world.
Alpha is the constant to which others seem linked.
Without alpha, the theoretical becomes the inexplicable and you are left alone floating in space – just you, a variable alpha and your non-existent Maker.
But if things are not constant then …
Logically, ‘something’ must be keeping those non-constants mutually synchronised in a chaotic, uncontrolled universe – otherwise we all would implode.
Messy!
Thus ‘something’ must be altering the universe moment by moment to mirror these non-constants as they vary.
So logic drives us towards a synchronising ‘power’ which itself is constantly adjusting things.
But even scientists can be illogical if their research depends on this, so they all keep very quiet about this.
Dirac’s Legacy as the Invisible Man
And of course, because of this, despite his being a head and shoulders above nearly all his contemporaries, Dirac has been made into an invisible man.
He was ‘an Edwardian geek’ who was entirely self-effacing, and never promoted himself, so this is easy.
He is lauded for everything except the inevitable conclusions of his theory.
Thus, in the public eye, one thing the experts are absolutely certain of, without a shadow of doubt, is that conditions that affect radioactive decay and the rate of that decay itself simply have never changed and will not do so.
This is the scientists’ hopeless prayer, like Portia’s ‘O, constancy, be strong upon my side’.
She knows that Brutus is up to no good and they know that these constants are about to stab a knife into their complacent little world.
But this cannot happen.
It must not.
They all have absolute faith in that.
All these physicists rely on these 250 to 300 constants we have mentioned: indeed they are certain that we all rely on them.
First, not only would they lose their status, grants, careers and raisons d’etre, but, as a less important consequence, neither they nor we would exist.
Thus, particularly physicists start twitching violently if you suggest that the world is not one of immutable constants.
But others have taken up the Dirac trail and a large body of silent opinion now regard his ideas as irrefutable.
Alpha’s Identity Crisis and the Fine Structure Constant
And not only is alpha is a little unsure of itself, it has a fundamental identity crisis.
The ‘tragedy’ is that no one can explain why alpha is the value it seems to have.
In this we can trust the honest genius Richard Feynman when he writes:
‘It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to….…. about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.….Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the ‘hand of G-d’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.’ We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of a dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!’
The Strong Anthropic Principle
Let us look at one quasi-philosophical way out.
It is the double-think ‘strong’ Anthropic Principle: ‘We’re here asking why we are here because we are here therefore conditions for the initiation of this here universe and life must have happened here so we could ask why we are here because … sort of.’
Honestly, intelligent people have invented and debated this seriously for years.
Anthropos means human – again illustrating the truth that if you want to something really idiotic, say it Greek.
In this highly-brilliant solution, full grown scientists actually gravely murmur, ‘We exist as intelligent life asking how our existence, a chance of 10 to the power of 150, could have happened. We exist in this universe and therefore that chance happened. Thus, retrospectively, our universe is forced to contain us otherwise we would not be here to ask.’
Now I must admit that sounds plain stupid to me – but it is physics and must be very, very clever.
But, on the other hand, it is also philosophy and must be incredibly stupid.
A second, ‘Weak Anthropic Principle’ adds that rather than being forced, our universe simply ended up as having us around to ask – through ‘selection’.
This is made no easier for me by adding that there are trillions upon trillions of universes – and just a few ended up with organisms like me, asking awkward questions.
This really is not a spoof – these men are serious.
Roger Penrose on the Anthropic Principle
Back to real intellectuals.
As mentioned, our friend Roger Penrose had tried to explain the absurdity of this in 1989 in The Emperor’s New Mind, Chapter 10:
At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!
Note his exclamation mark.
I sense that he is simply mocking the circularity of this atheist faith-head statement.
He is big enough to say, ‘We just have no way of understanding this and ridiculous theories are an insult to the intelligence.’
Our impossible existence and the wobbly inconstant constant combine to give severe migraine to many.
Inconstant Constants in Scientific American
This problem bubbled away quietly and in 2005 Scientific American was bold enough to publish an article called ‘Inconstant Constants’.
It asked whether the laws of nature in fact altered with time.
It questioned alpha’s constancy, heretically threatening to torpedo radiometric dating.
We all are meant to rely on radiometric dating’s immutable constancy.
But it relies on alpha’s immutable constancy.
Substances must – but absolutely must – decay at a set, constant rate or radiometric dating and perhaps Dr Geiger’s machine are for the garbage.
Tragically again, after five years, results were published which strongly suggested this inconstancy of alpha was likely and time and space had the power to alter that which had been presumed were constant conditions.
This strikes at the root of your society, civilisation, morality and daily life.
The interplay within the atom is the very stuff of existence and is encompassed by radioactivity and its presumed decay.
This interaction is existence.
Dirac’s Full Quote on God and Life
And what of our quote which started this section?
Let me quote more fully from the profoundly anti-religious Dirac himself, who had started all this trouble.
And please accept my assurance that I did not ring him and ask him to write this.
‘It could be that it is extremely difficult to start life. It might be that it is so difficult to start life that it has happened only once among all the planets. …Let us consider, just as a conjecture, that the chance life starting when we have got suitable physical conditions is 10^-100. I don’t have any logical reason for proposing this figure, I just want you to consider it as a possibility.
Under those conditions…it is almost certain that life would not have started. And I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life.
I would like, therefore, to set up this connexion between the existence of a god and the physical laws: if physical laws are such that to start off life involves an excessively small chance, so that it will not be reasonable to suppose that life would have started just by blind chance, then there must be a god, and such a god would probably be showing his influence in the quantum jumps which are taking place later on. On the other hand, if life can start very easily and does not need any divine influence, then I will say that there is no god.’
Meaning, but of course Life cannot start very easily ergo…!!!
Science’s Need For a Creator: Big Bang Theory in Jewish Texts?
We consider Real Judaism’s concept of Creation and the Big Bang Theory, but now, according to the greatest atheist scientists, we are forced to ask, ‘What or, dare I ask, Who, is keeping all this in sync?’
Must the atheist accept a constantly caring, involved Creator?
No.
Of course not.
That is ridiculous.
But there must be some constantly changing system which just happened, ‘by chance.’
There are naturally hundreds of clever half answers including the newly discovered, very exciting gravitational waves which have picked up ‘the collision of two black holes which initiated a gravitational wave one billion years ago.’
These may allow us to ‘sense’ the universe as far back as the Big Bang.
In between abandoning his wife and tiny children and running two mistresses, Einstein had predicted this in 1916.
By the way, I have mentioned earlier that you lot keep on insisting this was 13.2 billion years ago.
We have known, for two millennium at least, that it was 15.3405 Kabbalistic years ago but at least you’re getting there – slowly.
The Impossibility of the Universe, Life, and Inconstant Constants
So, now the leading world scientists have proven that the universe is impossible, life is impossible, mutation is impossible and our impossibly continuing to be here is impossible because of those pesky inconstant constants.
Why is it even necessary to write all this down?
(Yes, I know. Nobody asked me …)
The Big Bang Theory and Inconstant Constants Dilemma
I shall tag one other problem to the inconstancy dilemma.
It is closely connected because the constants’ variations are described as the result of an expanding universe.
If it expands and has done this constantly (which is not proven), then it must have at some time been ultimately ‘non-expanded’ in the extreme – absolutely concentrated into the smallest space.
This is at the heart of the Big Bang Theory which requires all the energy of the universe to be neatly gathered in one infinitesimal point in the past.
We shall meet a quote later describing this as ‘an absolutely infinitesimal, unimaginably minute source. This had no tangibility as such but rather a latent possibility to release energy’.
Science Playing Catch Up With Divine Wisdom
Tragically this was written in 1250 by one of those Rabbis.
Boy, did it take a long time for you guys to catch up.
Dirac raised any number of conundrums because inconstant constants in a Big Bang context create a vacuum of logic.
For example, if this ‘non-created’ mass of super-concentrated energy was there ‘before’, what made it bang?
It should have just stayed as it was because constants ruled and even ‘built in’ inconstancy is reckoned to change infinitesimally.
And remember, it was all in one place with ‘nothing’ elsewhere – in fact there wasn’t an ‘elsewhere’.
So you cannot presume somebody sneezed and woke it up, or a wobbly pink dragon flew into it.
If, however, this primordial energy were intrinsically unstable and therefore Big-Banged all by itself, how did it show enough discipline to line up neatly and stay in one place until the Bang?
Kids in school never do that.
We discuss elsewhere a strange theory of there being a ‘nothing’ which was ‘something’, but we are not launching into a debate here of how the energy came about.
This is because Jews do not need to do this.
Remember we claim to have witnessed the Creator at Sinai.
We do not need to try to prove His existence through argumentation or logic except for those brainwashed because of ignorance of Real Judaism.
But nonetheless, as you must not accept our testimony, just continue the thought.
That there energy must come from a ‘source’ according to every physical law we know.
By positing that – the need for a source – we insist that something must have initiated, generated, produced, formed, originated, resulted in that initial energy.
Science’s Need For a Creator: A Lone Voice Admits the Obvious
Obviously, no sane person dare suggest using the words ‘created’ or ‘fashioned’ because they imply an intelligence and design.
Yet all this leads inexorably to the unthinkable which must never be uttered.
One unwise statement by a renowned, eminent scientist, Fred Hoyle, made him a leper for many because he unforgivably actually made the inference all must steadfastly deny:
‘I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could not fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to consequences they produce within stars.’
He also wrote of ‘some super-calculating intellect that must have designed …’ and ‘monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.’
And blame this on Dirac, with his ridiculous ‘and I feel that under those conditions it will be necessary to assume the existence of a god to start off life.’
Who does he think he is?
Science’s Need For a Creator: Mutation Just Ran Out Of Time
Sorry, it just gets worse; new discoveries concerning Deep Time have minced mutation.
Men of vast intellects; the greatest minds on earth agree that it is simply impossible.
How can we break this to you?
Santa just does not exist.
Yes, Darwin looked like him, but, sorry, no presents – only the beard.
We have read that unimaginable lengths of time never happened, even in Darwin’s terms.
Now radiometric dating has rendered it as dead as the dodo, and doubts about dating’s accuracy only reduce the billions.
Nonetheless, let us dream that our universe just ‘happened’; let us dream that life just decided to pop up one bright sunny morning.
So we agree we are here.
But mutation?
The question is how it is that we have pretended for so long that there is a possibility of mutation occurring to those impossible first life forms.
Still Waiting For Evidence of Mutation?
We know that a myth was born and believed that over billions of years anything could happen, given long enough.
This of course is utter rubbish.
If something does not happen, simply waiting for a billion or so years will not make it happen.
Just consider waiting for a bus.
I cannot believe those who believe in all this are being honest with themselves.
Who was selling this stuff?
Comedians?
Quack magicians?
But today the mutants are suffering from deflation.
Ironically, evolutionists’ own colleagues are responsible for demolishing the oh-so-useful ‘countless generations’ and ‘countless millions’.
Endless time to mutate and mutate again can no longer be essential credos of the Immaculate Mutation Faith.
Again, the improbability has now grown to so many tens to the power of ten to the power of ten that the calculations become impossible.
We need infinity, literally, for this impossible event to have occurred.
The odds against are a trillion times greater than the total number of critical, sceptical brain cells in the heads of all evolutionists in the world.
Note: not brain cells – critical, skeptical brain cells.
Sheer Improbability of Mutation in The Evolutionist Timeline
So, life is now ‘proven’ to be ‘only 4 billion years old’.
Further, the mutationists claim the real burst of mutation occurred in the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ – a mere ‘600 million years ago’.
And utterly ridiculously, they sagely note that the greatest surge of mutation was within ‘about 25 million years’.
In Darwinian terms this is a split second and the concept suicidal insanity.
Charlie needs billions of years to sell his story and they give him 25 millions.
This makes the whale tale seem tame.
At least the whale was given 50 million years to mutate from a little sniffy mammal prancing about the river bank to the recently discovered Livyatan.
Impossible – but more generous that 25 million.
Now we have to believe that pond scum to pterosaur happened, in Deep Time terms, overnight.
Evolution makes its advocates money and fame – but they are merely like the pagan priests of old.
They hold sway over the gullible because they allow them to prance around the idol and worship in whichever way they enjoy most.
We should be able to leave it to the mutationists to destroy their own argument.
But they are nothing if not resilient.
That is how they have survived.
They have mutated their tale.
They now talk of ‘rapid mutation’ in a few generations.
This is a flight of fancy excelling even Icarus.
If classic mutation is sheer comedy, then this rapid mutation is crude farce.
It is a caricature of an already insane faith.
‘And what,’ may you well ask, ‘is ‘rapid’ mutation?’
O, Best Beloved, prepare for the tale of how the mutationist kept his job.
He just kept growing his nose longer and longer – like Pinocchio.
That duck-billed platypus is just adorably impossible!
Leave a Reply