Respected scientist says our existence is a finely tuned accident

Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: “That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.”

“Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable,” Kaku says. “That’s called ‘science.’ However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.” He’s noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such ‘non-falsifiable’ problem.

This, dear reader, is what sceptics and Atheists cling to when they refuse to make the final step.

  1. Scientist agree: The universe is “impossibly” finely tuned
  2. Can’t create an experiment that proves the existence of the entity (thing) who/that tuned it in a fashion that is testable and repeatable
  3. Ergo, there is no God (creator, first mover, etc)

No, it proves that science isn’t a suitable mechanism to prove the existence (or otherwise), of the “creator of everything”.

So why would the most intelligent, accomplished, and respected scientists not allow themselves another tool? Why do scientists believe that science measures everything inside of, outside of, or related to our universe?

Scientists (sceptics / Atheists) need to accept that science fails them.  And the proof God exists lies outside of science.

Best scientific explanation using science of our own existence?



Source: of screen images J. Warner Wallace video.

Bad ideas die a natural death

An agnostic turned Atheist finally finds truth in Jesus Christ.  Not because he chose to believe something he can’t understand, but because it was the only place logic led him.

I have had a similar journey.

Says Andrew

I was an Atheist and an agnostic of most of my life and was baptised at the age of 49. I’ve been down every wrong road it is possible to go down, and it is only… it is only logic that led me where I was … to where I finally ended up. It is only reason that did it. … I do believe; I really do have faith that at some point, bad ideas collapse.

I was jousting with an Atheist a few days ago who challenged me on my statement that I didn’t believe, but I actually know Christianity is the only correct final choice.  He said I could not know it.  I may believe it, but not know it.

I asked him if he studied the Gospels.  He had not.

A few weeks before my epiphany, I read somewhere “Have you spent at least as much time looking into Christianity as you have into everything else?”.

I hadn’t.  In fact, I had looked more into the possibilities of aliens existing, that humanity has previously lived on Mars, that the current civilisation is possibly the third “wave” after two previous resets, and so on.

When I looked into Christianity with the same interest and without the preconceptions that I had carried all my life, I found… unassailable logic.

You don’t have to believe to be a Christian.  You can know.

Lazy Atheist thinking on Free Will

On the issue of Free Will, Matt Dillahunty holds the position that a God that is all-knowing will know what you decide to do your whole life.  As such, what you do your whole life is pre-set, and ergo, you do not have Free Will.

On the surface, this seems a solid and unassailable position.

Matt Dillahunty – Atheist philosopher

Before I address this, it is a common method for Atheists to argue against the “Goldilocks” principle of Earth, which (in short), make the Earth and life on it so improbable in the universe that it can only be designed, by invoking the possibility of a multi-verse.  It holds that in an infinite number of universes, one of them would have Earth exactly in the right position, with the right conditions, and it hosts us.

Atheists like Dillahunty do not extend theists the same “escape clause” by allowing God to know the infinite paths of choice that a person has simultaneously and that in our “multi-verse of Free Will”, God’s all-knowing nature can know all the choices a human makes simultaneously.

I suspect an Atheist wouldn’t be happy with this view, but to remain intellectually honest and consistent, if they allow for a multiverse to explain the Goldilocks Principle (it could be possible), then they must extend the abilities of an all-knowing god to know all possible permutations that arise from Free Will at the same time.

Another facet that is overlooked is that the Atheist assumes a human can have a complete understanding of the omniscience of a god as well as the complete implications of Free Will on a person in relation to an omniscient god.

Can an all-powerful god deliberately keep knowledge from itself only to peek into the room later to see how things worked out?  Is the ability to know everything all the time something that is then forced upon a god?

Atheist might argue that a god that chooses not to know things on purpose is then not all-knowing.  Is the idea that a god can know everything enough?  Is the idea a god can choose to “put a blindfold on” proof he’s no longer all-knowing, or is it OK to do so because god can know everything, in advance, as it happening, afterwards, or outside of time itself?

The Old Testament clearly indicates God is upset about human decisions along the way. Why would He be upset if He is all-knowing?

The answer lies in the fact that God is powerful enough to give himself periods where he sets humans on a course of their own to see what they will do with this Free Will.  But he can, if He wants to, at any time, be fully aware of everything.

A Computer programmer can know everything that happens inside a computer at all times.  The volume, speed, and complexity of information inside an operating computer preclude the computer programmer of knowing everything all the time: what has happed, what is happening, and what will happen.  But given time, and all the information, even a mere human can know everything about that computer, software, etc.

The computer programmer doesn’t spend time knowing everything, she directs her attention as she sees fit.  She never loses the ability to know everything, but she is ignorant of some aspects because she doesn’t place her attention on it.  Yet even as a “mere human”, if she chooses to know, she can know anything and everything.

This is a model for the way God could operate.  And as such, Atheists’ clever little trick that apparently locks believers into a cul-de-sac where Free Will cannot exist under an all-knowing God is only successful because Atheists do no allow believers the ability to adjust the parameters of the thought experiment just like I have done in a number of ways above.

The suggestions I offered make it possible for Free Will and an all-knowing God to exist.  It thereby refutes the Atheists’ Free Will doesn’t exist argument.

Banks start shutting down accounts of conservatives. I wish I was kidding

So they take away your connections to your customers via YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and so on, and if that doesn’t bring you to your knees, they will convince your bank to withdraw services to you.

Don’t say what they don’t want you to say, and you’re fine.

Totalitarianism via Big Tech and the banking system.

Where will this end?

If you vote for Trump, you can’t bank here?

If you vote for National, you can’t bank here?

Churches burning down

It is not a scene in Game of Thrones, sadly, this is real.  The Notre Dame Cathedral is burning down.

What an iconic image that is going to be in years to come.

Speculation by media as to the cause of the include religion-motivated arson.  I’m not brave enough to repeat it here, because the current world-view is that Christianity is white, old men, and evil, and other faith systems are superior and beyond criticism.

Even if this tragedy is religion-motivated arson, I wonder if our current society and media have the courage to report it truthfully.  Sources close to the event are blaming a construction-related accident.

Hands up, those of you that are expecting a message:  “This is for Christchurch” to come from the usual communication channels in the Middle East?

Cyber Jihad erases Christian and conservative voices from the Internet

Recently, David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and Al Fadi were all temporarily banned by Facebook. Is this a coincidence? Not at all. A Muslim group called “” has been reporting random posts by critics of Islam, flagging the posts as hate speech, nudity, harassment, etc. And it’s working. How can Christian apologists and critics of Islam survive on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Patreon, when groups of cyber jihadis are flagging their content? David Wood discusses the issue.

Facebook, Twitter, Paypal and Patreon have all yielded to organised campaigns to shut down conservative and Christian voices.

The common thread appears to be factual criticism of Islam.  Tommy Robinson has been silenced for trying to highlight the systemic rape of girls by Muslim men living in his area.

David Wood is a long-time critic of Islam, and the cyber-Jihadis are in the process of getting him removed as well.

As David says in the video, the long term result of this will be that the majority of popular platforms will only contain positive material on Islam.

What’s wrong with that?  Because in a free society, people should be allowed to access opposing viewpoints too.

The interesting thing is that we imagined the control of information to come from nation states.  Instead, it has manifested itself through large tech companies, multinational media outlets, and banks taking non-neutral positions on certain issues in politics, religion and controversial topics.

In response, the people who have been removed from popular publishing platforms are trying to regroup on unknown platforms.  They appear to think that this will work.  Looking into the future, I don’t see an end to this process.

leftists can only win by removing people’s ability to speak

Everything on the Internet eventually relies on some business service providing infrastructure, be it a company hosting the information, a company managing the emails, a company managing the domain name, and even a company providing the electricity and actual communications infrastructure.

Almost all of these will be susceptible to organised harassment, threats, and imagined public embarrassment.

The only hope is that these activists / Jihadis / leftists will overstep the mark and the process will turn in on itself.  Students of history will note that they generally don’t know when to stop.  They start with the easy kills, like David Wood, but they will eventually start coming for edge cases where even their overlords and media sympathisers will refuse to be associated with them.

That time can’t come fast enough.

Christians and conservatives thrive when there is a free flow of information. Our arguments succeed against alternative viewpoints.  This is why leftists can only win by removing people’s ability to speak.

Free speech in the West is in a dire state right now as seen through the Internet and major media channels.

But we can all make a difference in the real world how we act and communicate.  They have no power to control speech, thought, and actions by people who aren’t relying on mass communication.

Media: Muslims aren’t white, Christians are, ergo…

Metro Voice: The attack against two mosques in New Zealand has continued to dominate the headlines in the American media since a self-proclaimed racist killed 50 people.

Although attacks against Muslims living in the western world are extremely rare, the situation does not compare with the killing of Christians living in the Muslim world.

According to Open Doors USA, at least 4,305 Christians known by name were murdered by Muslims because of their faith in 2018.

New Zealand broadcast a Muslim call to prayer on all state-owned broadcasting channels, both radio and TV while its Prime Minister, a secular white woman donned a headscarf for over a week.

The erosion of New Zealand as a country that has a deep understanding of God is as steady as it is successful.

By now, more than half of New Zealand worship at the altar of Media and Hollywood.

Ariana Grande claims God is a woman
“Christian” Bale thanks Satan

How Brian Tamaki, John Banks, Colin Craig and Graham Capill have destroyed all hope for a New Zealand conservative political party

New Zealand is in desperate need of a political party that represents right-of-centre political views.  The kind that promotes traditional marriage, a mum and a dad as parents, and a moral life.

We have had a number of politicians that have stood on those policy planks over the last several decades, and too many have failed to walk their talk.

As a result, the New Zealand voter is and will remain suspicious of anyone who stands up for conservative, traditional and family values.

I can’t even discuss one of the people in this list because court-ordered name suppression prevents me from disclosing anything about the person – including what the conviction was for, how the person was known to the voters, or how politics was involved. This was to protect the victim, ostensibly, but the victim has been to court to have suppression removed and failed.  That aside, this individual heads a list of people that have contributed to the collective damage inflicted on New Zealaned political conservatism.

Credit: Getty

Some might say John Banks should have been omited from this list. He’s certainly not in the same category as the others on this page when it comes to the severity of his transgressions. But the damage to the conservative political interests comes in many forms.  Mr Banks refused to acknowledge being the father of a child. He wanted the baby aborted. When his extra-marital girlfriend refused, he wanted another man to pretend to be the father. These are not values that we expect from conservative politicians, and Mr Banks firmly deserves a position in this list.

The absolute “winner” of this list of politicians that have destroyed New Zealand voters’ faith in conservative politics is, of course, Graham Capill. Mr Capill was convicted of multiple sexual offences against girls under 12 years old.  The damage done by Mr Capill was just about wearing off in the public’s mind when the next character entered conservative politics.

Having successfully obtained confidentiality and suppression of the finer details of a number of trials involving Colin Craig, the facts eventually made it to the public. And against Mr Craig’s will and belief, New Zealand courts have decreed multiple times during multiple cases that he had sexually harassed a woman employee almost young enough to be his daughter.  He was in fact besotted with her and has admitted to “inappropriate behaviour” while married. he has never accepted that part of his behaviour was unwanted and therefore tripped the legal barrier of sexual harassment. A jury and several judges disagreed with Mr Craig over a number of distinct trials during which Mr Craig sought a different decision. Even though other parts of those trials have been appealed or adjusted upon appeal or during other trials, the sexual harassment decision has remained the single constant throughout all of them.

The final New Zealand conservative that has indicated political involvement, directly or indirectly, over the years is Brian Tamaki. He presents his movement as a type of gang. He himself riding motorcycle and wearing gang-like patched leathers, his followers dress in black, are mostly male, and there is a strong link into New Zealand’s gang culture with reformed gang members being part of the church.


For a credible and effective New Zealand conservative party to have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting off the ground, the first thing it will need is time.  Time for the voters to get the cumulative bad taste out of their mouths left there by those conservatives that put themselves up as examples and as leaders to be followed.

The damage they have done to our country is in fact immeasurable. The absence of a credible conservative voice in politics has aided a steady move to the left where even the reigning “centre-right” party is now solidly left-of-centre.  There is no strong voice speaking for children that don’t want to be aborted, nor for the married couple that is being marginalised as today’s weirdoes because they don’t accept that “women can be men, and men can give birth”.

We need to “thank” Graham Capill, John Banks, Colin Craig, and Brian Tamaki for a job well done.  The progressives and the left could not have had better champions.*  Politics is currently moving to marginalise and demonise white men, no matter what their politics.  The honour roll above will do nothing but serve as perfect examples for their cause, causing men, white men, and especially older white men to be legislated, administered and intimidated out of their equal and fair share of what they are due by natural law.

*There is another case that is under full suppression that involves children. It hasn’t damaged politics because suppression is there to protect the children. But it adds to the list of politicians on the right damaging the very causes they publicly say they support.

It’s happened again

I was reading tweets, and liking some, from

  • Celebrities that are or have become Christian
  • Conservative media personalities
  • President Trump
  • The ever-classy Melania Trump…

…when they turned off my access to Twitter citing breaches of the Twitter rules.

They aren’t very subtle about it, are they?