when you say that there has to be a God because there should be some something before you I told this boy who faced opposition from his school children on this issue that this attitude is wrong there is no proof because if everything has to be preceded by something else then God has to be preceded by something else too so this has never been our argument the two argument I mean the most important thing is to start with the concept of eternity eternity is something which which can never be gainsaid in any way it is the most positive thing that one finds eternity you can’t run away from it.
So there has to be eternity that is our common platform on which we start and however strange eternity may appear to us yet it is a proven fact you can’t conceive of a situation without eternity in both directions in the past as well as in future now there are two possibilities either this universe which we find today and this life and everything is eternal or there is some other being eternal if this is considered eternal then consciousness is not eternal because it is evolved out of death you follow this point now the issue would be now the being because eternity has to be there now there are two possibilities either the in any mate was eternal or a conscious being was eternal and on either of the two you can’t have any logical objection you escape from one you have to you have to fall into in the lap of the other and both are equal possibilities if in any meeting can be eternal and animate and conscious being could also be eternal why not they’re equally situated and equally possible but if we observe in this universe that there is a hand of consciousness consciousness playing upon it then we can positively prove that this is not eternal the conscious being was eternal the influence of a conscious being if it is observed on the universe which we find then it is proved that the conscious being has to precede the unconscious and they because eternity has to be accepted in any way the question who produced that conscious being would not arise at all.
Only there are two possibilities either this is eternal or that is eternal to always start your journey from eternity and present a position for a situation to your adversary that there is only two choices either a conscious being is eternal or an unconscious world is eternal and on neither of the two you can object because what is there is obvious it has to be there but the issue is which is possibly eternal now when we look at the things which we observe we see evolution and it was there that I mentioned DNA and RNA exactly you see evolution and we find through observation of evolution that it is a guided evolution it is not an unguided evolution which could occur through chance so if you can prove this point that the evolution in itself is not a blind evolution which could occur in any direction and it so happened that it took this direction in which we find ourselves today then guided evolution means a conscious being before it otherwise it could not be guided a being outside so to prove this point I started with RNA DNA but even otherwise this can be proved differently this is one scientific accepted principle that for us for something to be born there has to be the fundamental requirements of that thing already in existence so this is an accepted principle of science that life cannot be born out of death there has to be a seed of life so how this process ultimately began there are even now puzzle they try to justify their theories but once the principle is accepted that life cannot be born out of death they are they find themselves in very difficult mess.
When they reach the early stages of life and try to explain how it evolved but even there I quoted that RNA and DNA their existence proves that all their efforts will always fail to justify the appearance of life from death automatically this is the issue so because I told you told the boy that if you study the internal structure of RNA and DNA now DNA is the basic brick of life the very earliest form of life has the basic unit which is called DNA DNA means that unit of life which is which has highly codified information it’s a sort of minutest possible computer in which everything is codified how the life should behave how it should generate how it should survive how should we should react under in pressures of adversity how it should flourish at the time of you know this situations in which are helpful and abundance in the time of abundance etc.
So everything every situation is encoded in that basic cell of life which is called the first brick of life for one single cell DNA is enough because it is DNA or the cell one and the same thing but if there is a colony of various cells and a new animal is evolved out of the DNA collection of DNA then RNA is also essential because RNA is the unit of life which carries messages from DNA to another DNA it decodifies a message in the DNA and gives it a different chemical shape then reaches another point where it is destined to reach and then in the same codification of the first DNA it gives that message to the other DNA this messenger system is called RNA now these two basic fundamental units of life are the most preliminary ones between them and share death.
There is very little time no distance in fact how they evolved these most highly complicated things and what are the innumerable stages between their existence and death this is a question which no scientist can answer because he can’t accept the existence of God talking of science and he can’t solve this question anyway so here they have to become dumb but some scientists have taken up the kajal in favor of religion on this point and now more and more are joining their line in fire they openly challenge now the possibility of blind not only evolution but the blind creation of life from death automatic spontaneous creation of life from death well I shouldn’t say spontaneous because much larger time is involved but between the first death the first shape of death and the first shape of life there has to be a barrier wherever that barrier is placed the difference between this stage and that stage is so big that it cannot be traversed through a huge jump which is apparently impossible unless somebody picked it up from here and put it there that means a foreign conscious influence.
So some scientists who have started analyzing this situation have worked out mathematically the impossibility of such a happening they said this is an impossible position it could not have occurred so I quoted one I think it was Lyle Lyle and Singer they have written a book yes Mr. Lyle and Singer is an American scientist he has written a book on this subject although he his theories are unacceptable because he after rejecting this he says life must have come from another planet and he has his own theory and he then he goes astray completely so he gives chance to the other scientists to attack him on this theory but none has attacked his mathematics and it is the mathematics to which I am pointing out this is more important to us not his theory the mathematics tells us that for the DNA to come into creation there has to be there has to be a chain of innumerable chances because it is so perfectly ordered organization first of all enzymes are created they are put in set definite order and a chain is created for the creation of each enzyme there has to be a chain of other possibilities behind it so mathematically putting it together he says the chance of the possibility of DNA having appeared by chance is as remote as the possibility of one over 140,000 zeros on the right-hand side a figure which is which only the scientists can imagine how huge and tall this figure is because all the atoms of the entire universe are much less in number than this figure that means that the possibility through chance would be that if all the atoms are subdivided into sub particles and the whole universe is then mixed together but you have to pick just one single sub particle one particular sub particle particle which is dead and you put your hand in that mess and just reach that particle.
If that is possible then all this is possible that is what he wants to say but much more because this universe does not have enough sub particles to meet the requirement of that number so this is what I said proves positively that chance does not explain anything at all if it’s a man is accepts what he sees and this is true scientific approach he should accept his defeat he must say that the net result of the investigation is this that up till now we have been following chance and attributing everything to it but this false God has proved to be too false now and now these things cannot be attributed to chance positively not so there has to be something else if you’re agnostic you can say we don’t know what something is that something is but those who are religious they can draw their own conclusion then that after all they were right the eternity there is but in the form of a conscious being not in the form of an unconscious being this is the name is just a chemical name but it is not just an asset this form it is found in a regular organization and chain that is DNA dinucleic acid name I’m talking of DNA this okay exactly that’s correct the technical name chemical evidence.
In which many scientists published by their experiments some of them Nobel laureates this tells us that in the conscious being must be there and that God does exist and this whole universe cannot have existed created but by a conscious being that book is beautiful one the evidence in which we are I see but when I read those articles not in this book I mean generally whenever I read those articles I find that they present our case very weakly defectively because they want to justify the evidence they find with their concept of Christianity which they cannot do so they have to take some stupid attitudes unacceptable stances which are rejected by the two scientists so they in fact work against this case that material which they use if it is employed by amethyst then if that material would be in the safest hands because our crawleries would be correct our inferences would be right while they are in a very difficult position to justify what Christianity says while armed with the facts arise is not possible so it is helpful to us no doubt because we must concentrate on the data contained in such books but not in the logic or the inferences they are drawing they are always defective but in this collection I didn’t find anything they were quite logical. Well, if they just can I mean remain confined to the concept of one creator then it will remain logical but the moment they try to reconcile it with Genesis or Christian thoughts biblical views it is there that they make mistakes. They have a strict theory around it. They didn’t bring in Trinity in that. They didn’t. Then it will be alright. Correct.
