Proof that God exists, and that science is wrong

Contents

Quiz
Fatally flawed
Dual Reality
Ignoring Max Plank
Materialism
Killing fallacies
References

---------------------

Abstract: God exists. The evidence lies in the statements and beliefs of literally billions of earth-bound individuals over the millennia, all of whom have professed a belief and/or presented evidence for the existence of a God-like intelligent entity. This has existed across all religions and all belief systems, ancient and modern. Science rejects this, simply because the tenets of the scientific method have specifically excluded all things that are not material. As such, Judas-like they are bound to deny the existence of God. The following article, in turn, presents evidence for the existence of God and shows how the scientific method could simple be applied to support the evidence presented.

---------------------

God is not a being, but the act of being itself (St Thomas Aquinas, 13th century)

Does God exist? (Robert Kuhn, Closer to Truth, 2024)

Human souls gain nothing by being saved, as it detracts from their own evolutionary experience of finding the creator of all and the source within themselves (Galactic Federation of Worlds 2024)

--------------------

1. Quiz

Q: Does God exist?

Ans.: Yes, of course.

Q: Prove it!

Ans.: The proof is multifaceted. For example, it is proven by the fact that since time immemorial, the belief in the existence of God has been almost universal, however you want to define the concept of God, be it Cosmic Consciousness, Source, Creator, The One, Allah, Jehovah, Biame, etc., etc.

Q: But that proof is not according to the accepted scientific methodology, is it?

Ans.: No. It is a belief, based on a spectrum of evidence ranging from first hand experience through to teachings.

Q: So what about science?

Ans.: The scientific methodology is flawed, and therefore it cannot answer your question. Also, the proof often comes in subjective experience, such as the statement "I love my wife" in which the only evidence is the statement and experience of the individual making that statement. It is true, but science cannot prove it according to its presently accepted methodology. This lack of ability to prove it scientifically, does not therefore make it false. The statement stands as evidentiary proof.

A succinct "Yes" answer to the question: Does God Exist? is presented in the following 2024 interview with scientist Russell Stannard:

Russell Stannard - Does God Exist?, Closer to Truth, 26 December 2024, YouTube, duration: 8.16 minutes.

A definite, emphatic "No!" is present in an edition of Robert Kuhn's Closer to Truth YouTube podcast from 2020, which is linked in the Killing Fallacies section below. This was based on the primacy of science and an inherent belief in the non-existence of a non-physical reality.

---------------------

2. Fatally flawed

Science is fatally flawed. It has developed a regime whereby only half of reality is addressed - the so-called physical (material) realm - and the other half - the non-physical (energy) realm - is ignored, censored, ridiculed and belittled for no reason other than that science sees it as too hard to deal with. It is therefore rejected by the scientific fraternity due to intellectual laziness and bias against elements of the non-physical realm such as religion and consciousness. It is also racist as it limits itself only to the human race.

Frankly, there is no reason for this to be. If science equally applied its methodologies to both the physical realm and the non-physical realm, then there would be no problem, no contention, and no confusion or controversy. There would simply be problems solved, yet to be solved, or identified as - perhaps temporarily unsolvable. This all leads to confusion. For example, at present we have it being stated that science uses religion to deflect the need to address difficult questions, though scientists, in turn, often claim the opposite to be the case, i.e., religion uses science to avoid answering difficult questions. Science is obviously winning the to-and-fro intellectual argument at this point, though the number of ordinary people who believe otherwise - i.e. in elements of the non-material realm within their life - is way out in front. The following basic, school-level definition of the scientific method clearly reveals this ability for it to accommodate both aspects of reality and more readily address the desires of the general public to have a clearer understanding of the world they live in:

The scientific method is a systematic approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the world around us. It involves making observations, asking questions, forming hypotheses, testing those hypotheses through experiments, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. This process is iterative, meaning that it can involve revisiting and refining steps as new information is gathered. (Study.com 2023)

There is nothing in this statement that cannot be applied to both the physical and non-physical realms. Of course they cannot be applied equally, as the physical and non-physical are inherently different, though intimately connected. However both can be subject to observation, questioning, hypotheses, testing (limited in the non-material realm), experimentation, data analysis and conclusions.

A good example of this is the various academic and research processes the CIA and Standford Research Institute instigated during the 1970s and 1980s to prove and refine the process of remote viewing, whereby individuals could enable their consciousness - sight and sound - to travel outside of their physical body and location to a remote place where they could observe actual events and report back. Needless to say, this was utilized - and is still being utilized - by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, to spy on, and locate individuals. Of course the very possibility of remote viewing and other such psychic abilities are denied and debunked by the scientific community at large.

The application of an updated and expanded scientific method to the two aspects of our reality as experienced on planet Earth would meld into one, and be addressed by science as a continuum. Many are already doing this, but the vast majority, led by the Academy (universities and military:industrial complex researchers), refuse to move and have their heads well and truly embedded in the sand.

The evidence for the existence of the energy realm is there for all to see, in the form of near death experiences, precognition, remote viewing, ESP, love, thought, consciousness, speech, God and clairvoyance. However, science is blind to it, and has purposefully made itself so, thereby creating a false excuse for its exclusion from the scientific endeavour to understand the totality of human, Earth-bound reality. This is the ultimate hypocrisy, the supreme arrogance on the part of human kind, to believe that it can know everything there is to know, and not accepting that what it preaches to know is only a fraction of reality's totality. This article addresses that totality.

---------------------

3. Dual Reality

Let's talk about reality and apply the scientific method, going to First Principles. We begin with the origin of everything, as in the creation of our universe and the time when there was (supposedly) nothing prior, and something was created out of nothing. Evan if there was something prior, it is nevertheless the point we consider the creation of the universe and a good place to start. Of course, there has never been a point in which there was nothing, because one cannot make something out of nothing. There has always been something. Regarding the process of creation of the universe as we on Earth know it, that something was either:

(1) created spontaneously, with no direction or guiding force (NB: no explanation has been given for how this could be done); or

(2) created by an intelligent entity, or entities, of infinite ability, often referred to (in the singular and/or plural) as Creator, Source, The One, the Trinity, Cosmic Consciousness or God.

This latter option provides a source to the process of creation and involves the element of agency, whereby something, or someone, is involved, and entity is intelligent. Of course to speak of the creation is and erroneous simplification, as the process of creation is timeless and ongoing. Where, then, does God fit into all this precisely?

----------------

4. Ignoring Max Planck

To answer this question, scientists merely need to go back 130 years to statements by one of the most significant scientists of the twentieth century, namely the German Max Planck (1858-1947), inventor of quantum theory which has dominated recent advances in physical sciences. However, there is a problem with Planck, as seen from the following statements made by him in an interview with The Observer newspaper published on 25 January 1931 (extract only):

Scientific Beliefs and Others

Q: Do you think that life and consciousness are the outcome of the random action of natural laws, or do you think that they form part of some great scheme?

Planck: I believe that life is part of some greater life that we cannot understand. But this is not a scientific belief. It is a belief that must be justified on quite other than scientific grounds. Your question can only be answered by a fantasy.

Q: A fantasy?

Planck: A fantasy is a way of representing things to oneself in other than scientific terms. The beliefs that are expressed in a fantasy are not amenable to scientific tests. They are beliefs of a different order from the beliefs that rest on scientific evidence. Your question is not one that can be decided by bringing forward scientific evidence. Nevertheless it is a question concerning which beliefs may be held.

Q: How are such beliefs to be justified?

Planck: By their influence on character. Such beliefs cannot be sincerely held without profoundly influencing character. A man's character can be the outcome of such beliefs. And the resultant character is the justification or the condemnation of the beliefs. This is the only way in which such beliefs can be judged. The scientific criteria of true and false cannot be applied to them. Moral and scientific beliefs are justified on quite different grounds.

Q: Do you think that consciousness can be explained in terms of matter and its laws?

Planck: No. I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

The problem with Planck is revealed in the last answer, which clearly tells the public and his colleagues that the physical realm and the non-physical realms are connected, and the latter is real and ever-present in the form of consciousness. This is reinforced in the following video on the subject of Planck's scientifically heretical views:

Max Planck's Universal Mind - Consciousness as the matrix of reality, Spiritual Quest, 1 July 2025, YouTube, duration: 7.14 minutes.

---------------------

5. Materialism

I like that Sean Carroll asserts a wholly physicalist world view, and he is ready to take on any who don't.... However, I must consider consciousness as a candidate for a "what exists" category. (Robert Kuhn, Closer to Truth, 2020)

As the above comment from neuroscientist and commentator Robert Kuhn reveals, science tells us God does not exist - apparently there is no evidence - and that all that exists is the physical realm, comprising matter in all its forms. It has put forward numerous arguments to support that, with the main one being that there is no physical evidence for the non-material realm, or for the existence of God. This is a lie, of course, as evidenced by the examples presented above. It is, in fact, a circular and deceptively false argument, in that science has specifically excluded all the non-physical realm from its ambit and then used that base to prove it does not exist, and that God does not exist! This circular logic is idiotic. It is like giving a child a black pencil and telling them that colour does not exist, and that the existence of the black pencil is proof of that. It is further inflamed by the ill-informed equating of the non-reality realm with the concept of Panpsychism which, in the view of scientists, proposes that ALL matter is conscious - a view which even the present writer rejects. Varieties of panpsychism may suggest that, but it is not a core belief. It merely proposes that the mind, or consciousness, is a fundamental feature of reality, just as Materialism is. (Goff 2018). To say that a rock is conscious is not in the purvue of Panpsychism. Perhaps what is clearer is the more conservative concept of Mind-body Dualism, which says that the mind (non-reality) and the body (physical reality) are separate. This is what is adhered to within this article.

Science has flipped the whole of reality around. What do I mean by that? Well, once again, let's go back to the very beginning of everything, the very beginning of the universe, before it existed in the form we know it today; before the so-called Big Bang 14.3 billion years ago, which, however, may or may not have marked the actual beginning of our universe. As already pointed out elsewhere, you cannot make something out of nothing (Organ 2025a). You have to have something in order to create. If we go back to the very beginning, when we assume there was nothing, and then note that the universe was created, we are then faced with the question: How? From what, and by whom? What was the creative force? The spontaneous creation argument does not work as there is too much order and intelligent design at the centre of the physical realm, including the process of evolution as part of that, to accept this is all random. That nothing could all of a sudden be replaced by something (impossible!) and then that something spontaneously evolved into the present universe, into our reality, into our individual consciousness, into who we are and what we are, into planets and stars so that was all spontaneous - that is unbelievable. No way! It is impossible to support a case that here was no rhyme or reason to creation, no so-called divine intervention, no plan, and that it all just happened to happen. So let us just put that aside and instead travel down the Creator path.

The universe was created by something, by an intelligence that had - and sill has - a plan, that has knowledge, an intellect. But where did that intelligent entity come from? As we cannot answer, or scientifically prove anything about that, all we can do is theorize, based on the copious evidence at hand. And this is where present day science hits a brick wall. "There is no evidence!" it says, and runs away. Yet here is the kicker - the evidence is in the creation of the universe; in the very fact that we exist and experience things, remember things and know the difference between reality and non-reality. How much more evidence does science need beyond that of millions and billions of eyewitness testimonies over the millennium? For science to, for example, reject the very existence of the universe as evidence of the existence of an agency / an intelligent being / a Creator, Source, Cosmic Consciousness / God - whatever one wants to call it, then to deny that is THE fatal flaw at the heart of science.

Where did that intelligence come from? Well, that's one of those questions we can't answer. Why? Because was there ever nothing, or was there always something, as in God? For example, in regards to creation of the universe as we presently know it 14.3 billion years ago, there may already have been a universe here, and the Creator came along, wiped it out, and replaced it with the new, present universe, our universe. The Creator obviously existed prior to the creation of our universe.

In our somewhat feeble human efforts to come to terms with a past, we cannot keep going back forever. We have to start somewhere and create some sort of point of origin for our narrative. So let's start with the idea that our universe was not in existence prior to its creation and ongoing process of creation; it might have been nothing or it might have been something, and then it was created by a Creator, an intelligent entity, sometime referred to as God. That entity was most likely non-physical energy with the ability to create matter and non-matter. In fact, it was, and remains, the only entity to create something out or nothing, or to at least manipulate energy and mass. We know from Einstein that E equals MC squared. So energy can be transformed in matter. And we know that our universe has as its baseline an energy which is greater than zero. This is known as free energy or zero point energy and it exists in the aether, everywhere. Space is not empty. Science has revealed this too us, just as Tesla revealed it, though it largely remains a secret to the masses. And when we tap into that energy, we can create matter. Therefore, the Creator could make use of this to create another universe.

At the end of the day, what do we call that creative force? Cosmic consciousness, God, Source, The One or any other number of human-created names. Whatever we refer to it as, it is nevertheless distinguished by the fact that it created the universe and it created fractalized versions of itself in the form of individual consciousnesses, in which we are the same but lesser. The thirteenth and fourteenth century Dominicans St. Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart both revealed the intimate connection between God and individual human beings, supporting this notion of fractalization (Organ 2025b). As a result, we now have an infinite number of eternal consciousnesses - Life can't die (Friedman 2023) - and those consciousnesses apply themselves to the physical realm that is being created, giving rise what we call life in, for example, the material world we know as Earth.

What do we mean by the physical or the material world or realm? We mean the hard things, the things we can see in our universe, macroscopic or microscopic. The things of physics. If we apply this discussion just to Earth, we note that the Earth is material (though the concept of Gaia applies a distinct consciousness to it); our world is material; we are material, made out of material that we can see, analyze, study and perhaps even copy. From the macroscopic to the microscopic and quantum level, let us call this the Physical Realm. It is all those things that are not nothing, but actually something; something that has some sort of material aspect and that can go all the way down to electrons, neutrons, and the quantum level. Does it go down to the level of energy? That is not clear, as, for example, the quantum level intersects with the material and non-material realms. Is energy material, physical? The answer is not clear, as we get into the realm of where the material and non-material worlds overlap (Chalmers 2020). So the answer can be yes, or no, or maybe. Does the physical realm include magnetic fields, electricity, electrostatic fields, heat, or are they part of the non-material realm we are referring to as energy? For this discussion, they are placed in the physical realm, as they are dealt with by human physics. The non-physical realm can to a certain degree be identified by all those non-physical elements of our reality, and especially those that are spurned by science.

Obviously science deals with what is known as the Physical Realm, which includes the material world but also includes the microscopic world of electricity, magnetism and all those other sorts of things that physics happily deals with. But we also the Non-physical Realm, and that can include things such as thoughts, feelings, emotions and consciousness, the latter being something that science claims it will - someday - work out, but cannot do so at present. The fact is, science in its present framework will never sort out consciousness because it has specific excluded the non-physical realm from its ambit.

The physical and the non-physical realms comprise reality, the reality of the universe, and Cosmic consciousness is energy transformed into a the physical realm such that they are combined to create the universe as we know it. God has enabled a connection to be made between the energy and the material, with humanity one of the outcomes of that process. Our presence is comprised of an organic machine we call the body and our non-material consciousness - nothing more and nothing less. That is the same with cats and dogs and trees and aliens and anything that has so-called life in it, down to the level of a single cell organism.

We have now explained how we have come from nothing, through something - the creation of the universe - into an intelligent individual being which, according to certain philosophical and religions teachings, is a manifestation of the original Creator, who is ultimately responsible for that transformation of energy into matter and a fractalized instance of their consciousness. This is the foundation for what we perceive as our present existence. It explains the origin of everything, including life. Anything else is secondary. But if one rejects this scenario, as science has, we are cut off from understanding our everyday reality.

Take ESP, for example. As humans we have a body and mind - the physical and non-physical. Consciousness is basically a form of energy, and it can be emitted from the body, such that if one has an intimate partner or children that energy can link up and communicate, like a smartphone links up with our car's sound system. So we can link up on a quantum level. One person could be 300 miles away, have a feeling or think about that other person, ring them up and they say "I was just about to ring you!" So those energies have ignored space-time restrictions and been able to connect up. This is an explanation for ESP, for precondition and for remote viewing, wherein individuals can see what's happening somewhere else, without using any physical devices.

With millions of experiential claims of energy connecting things across space time, it would be simple for an unrestricted, uncensored version of science to develop theories to explain it, rather than saying, "Oh no, it's ridiculous, crazy stuff, magical pseudoscience!" It is not that at all, and the people who say that are the people who are constrained, restricted self-censored prisoners of the physical realm. One of those is Robert Kuhn. Within Closer to Truth, on the rare occasion he interviews a person who believes in the non-physical realm, and those individuals provide cogent arguments for their beliefs, he invariably disregards their views and in many instances ridicules or belittle them. This is evidence that his initial education as a neuroscientist has indoctrinated him to such a degree that over the more than fifty years that he has been seeking to get closer to the truth has only resulted in him adhering to his immediate post-doctoral being.

The academy has said No! to non-reality and proclaimed science to be restricted only to the physical realm. Non-physical reality, as in the energy realm, is off limits. Therefore the effort by physicists to create a unified theory of everything has stalled at the gates. This is despite the fact that the answer to that effort is already known, to each and every person as they wake up in the morning and go about there lives. They know they live in a physical world, and they know that they are conscious, and that that consciousness is not physical but the two are intimately connected and that is how life exists, sustains itself and enables them to evolve over time until they die. A theory of everything is not necessary, except as a plaything for scientists - an attempt to affirm their ego-based delusions of God.

Despite this, a number of scientists, philosophers and free thinkers have rejected the constraints placed upon them by science and gone back to First principles in assessing the non-reality aspect of human existence. They have sought, for example, to explain the fact that a domestic cat can be at home, waiting for its owner to return, and no matter what time of the day, or day of the month, it will rush to the front door 10 of 15 minutes before their owner walks through it. The owner could be walking, driving or flying and yet the time period does not vary much. How do they know this? There is only one answer, and that is that they are in psychic communication with that person - they are sharing energies - and can perhaps read their mind and also be aware of their presence in time and space. This, of course, is something that science totally rejects.

Another area of copious amounts of evidence is in regards to precognition, which is a kind looking into the future, but not really. For example, if you are intimately connected to somebody and start thinking "I better go home now," they can pick that up. So whether it is your cat, or partner, or kids, both are aware of that. That tells you that they all have a consciousness and a connection in that energy realm across spacetime. Can this be explained by quantum theory, science? No. But if science, using quantum theory, then steps beyond that into the energy, non-physical realm, then an answer, an explanation, may then be found, or at least theorized to assist the public in the ongoing question for knowledge and possible answers.

---------------------

6. Killing all fallacies

In 2020 the Closer to Truth podcast dealt with the topic Fallacies in proving God exists, wherein, by definition, fallacies refer to misleading beliefs based on unsound arguments. The presenter aggressively pursued the topic and primarily interviewed individuals who sought to ridicule any belief in God.

Fallacies in proving God exists, Closer to Truth, 11 August 2020, YouTube, duration: 26.46 minutes.

Therein, the presenter Robert Kuhn also made clear his bias when he made the following extremely antagonistic statement:

It is odd that while I want to believe in God, I always want to expose these fallacies? No. I am offended when believers spout off so-called proofs of God that are patently absurd. Fallacies are my enemy. They undermine belief like evil demons. That's why I hate these fallacies. I want to find them and I want to kill them.

This was followed up with a podcast entitled Fallacies in Arguing for God? ...... The present writer was decidedly disheartened by the two, and by their lack of intellectual rigidity in dealing with the topic. The arguments against were mostly fallacious in and of themselves, presented with an emotional intensity, and weak, especially in addressing the core argument of God as creator of the universe and the origin of everything that is known and unknown.

----------------------

7. References

Chalmers, David, in What Exists, Closer to Truth, 2 April 2020, YouTube, duration: 26.47 Minutes.

Friedman, Manis, Life Can't Die, Rabbi Manis Friedman, YouTube, 26 April 2023, duration: 57.49 minutes.

Kuhn, Robert Lawrence, What Exists, Closer to Truth, 2 April 2020, YouTube, duration: 26.47 Minutes.

-----, Fallacies in proving God exists, Closer to Truth, 11 August 2020, YouTube, duration: 26.46 minutes.

-----, Russell Stannard - Does God Exist?, Closer to Truth, 26 December 2024, YouTube, duration: 8.16 minutes.

Organ, Michael (a), Nothing, blogger.com, 13 July 2025.

..... (b), Meister Eckhart, God and consciousness, blogger.com, 13 August 2025.

Planck, Max, Scientific beliefs and others, The Observer, 25 January 1931.

Scientific method : Definition, Steps & Examples, Study.com, 21 November 2023.

Wikipedia, Max Planck, Wikipedia, accessed 14 August 2025.

-----, Mind-body Dualism, Wikipedia, accessed 15 August 2025

-----, Panpsychism, Wikipedia, accessed 15 August 2025

-----, Remote Viewing, Wikipedia, accessed 15 August 2025.

-----, Thomas Aquinas, Wikipedia, accessed 15 August 2025.

---------------------

Last updated: 15 August 2025

Michael Organ, Australia

Search This Blog

Rambling thoughts of an overactive mind

Proof that God exists, and that science is wrong

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alien base @ Urlatherrke / Mount Zeil, Australia

The death of Nick Drake, Monday, 25 November 1974

TR-3B - an American, anti-gravity, warp drive, interstellar UFO