God reveals himself to man in his own interest

A God who knows how to create a universe will also know how to keep a proof of his existence in the created world. And he will also know how to make his presence known to human individuals.

Now let us suppose that this God has created the universe but that he has failed to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. Neither has he ever revealed his presence to anybody. In such a case no one will ever know that there is such a God and man will believe in as many false gods and goddesses as possible as they have done in the early ages of human history.

Now let us suppose that God has created the universe but that while creating it he has totally forgotten to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. However God has regularly revealed himself to many human beings in all the ages of human history. These human individuals through their personal experience will come to know that there is such a God with such and such attributes and they will also know that all the other gods and goddesses that man has imagined so far are all false gods and goddesses only. In this way human society will slowly move from polytheism to monotheism.

But this situation is not an ideal situation at all, because this will ultimately lead to authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism. The ideal situation is the one where there will be both; there will be the personal experience of human individuals and at the same time there will be one or more proof/s of God’s existence in the created world.

From above I hope it becomes clear that if there is a God at all, then why that God will have to reveal himself to human beings from time to time, as otherwise they will never come to know that there is such a God and as in such a situation they will believe in false gods and goddesses only. At the same time if God does not want to breed authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism, then he will also have to keep a proof of his existence in the created world.

I think I have been able to make my point clear that if there is a God at all, then why it is possible for human beings to personally know there is a God, because in his own interest God will have to reveal himself to man from time to time.

I personally know there is a God. That is why I also know that scientists will never be able to explain everything of nature by natural means.

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

I think the biggest blunder science has committed is this: it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Why? This is because when theists bring their God in the picture at all, they bring him in as the creator of the universe, not as a mere observer. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so God as the supposed creator of the universe is the creator of space, time, matter and energy. That means before creation by God there cannot be any space, time, matter and energy. That will further mean the creator God can never be in any space and time and neither can the creator God contain any matter or energy. That is why creator of the universe will always necessarily have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial; it can never be otherwise. So once scientists have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they will no longer be able to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile and all their arguments against this creator God will fall on deaf ears only.

Is the Universe Immaterial?

We already know that the total energy of the universe is zero. We also know that matter and energy are equivalent. From these can we conclude that the total matter of the universe is also zero? Scientist Vector J Stenger thought so. Here is a quote:

‘E=mc2 says matter and energy are the same entity. Since E=0, the total matter of the universe is zero. Zero does not have to come from anything.

‘Now, if by matter you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.’

– Vic Stenger, having been asked for a simple explanation to the question, “where did all the matter come from?” to a letter to Cliff Walker (September 11, 2001).1

But not everyone thinks so; there are other voices also. As per them it cannot be said that the total matter of the universe is zero simply because its total energy is zero. Actually matter in the universe counts for positive energy and gravity counts for negative energy. So when we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we arrive at a total energy of zero for the universe. But matter in itself has a non-zero value in the universe.

So I think the whole issue needs re-examination.

I think I have already made the point clear that the beginning of the universe will always mean that it will begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy.2 Therefore the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should also always have to be zero, because nothing in the universe can come from outside. So, if the universe has a beginning, then its total matter will obviously be zero. This is as per logic.

Now we can also give scientific reason as to why the total matter of the universe will have to be zero.

How is the zero total energy of the universe arrived at? Here matter is treated as positive energy and gravity is treated as negative energy. When we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we get zero total energy for the universe.

But energy cannot be directly deducted from matter. Neither can matter be directly deducted from energy. We will have to bring both of them into the same category before making any such addition or subtraction. We will have to convert either matter into energy or energy into matter. In the above case matter has been converted into energy and this energy is treated as positive energy. From this positive energy negative energy of gravity is subtracted.

Now instead of converting matter into energy, if we convert negative gravitational energy into matter, then we will get negative matter. If we now subtract this negative matter from the positive matter, then we will arrive at the total zero matter of the universe.

So both from the logical point of view as well as from the scientific point of view we can say that the total matter of the universe is zero.

Actually if we say that the total energy of the universe is zero and if matter and energy are also equivalent, then why can we not say that the total matter of the universe is also zero?

As the total matter of the universe is zero, so can we not say that the universe as a whole is immaterial?

Reference:

  1. Positive atheism quotes of Victor J. Stenger, http://www.positiveatheism.org
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/what-does-the-beginning-of-the-universe-actually-mean/

Are Scientists Biased?

Mathematical equations of SR and their implications are very simple to understand; one’s limited intelligence is sufficient for that purpose and no spoon-feeding from the big peers is required in this case. These equations show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. For light this universe is zero millimeters long and light takes zero time for traversing the entire span of the universe, starting from its one end to the other end. If certain portion of space is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light volume of that space will be zero and time will also stop there. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless and timeless state will obtain. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. That is why it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, so from this it can also be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. Here we are not at all saying that mathematics of SR shows that there is a God; rather we are merely saying that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. So nobody should misunderstand us here, either intentionally or unintentionally.

This case is exactly similar to the case of the multiverse. Up till now there is no demonstrable evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe. But there is the inflation theory and its mathematical equations. Here scientists claim that the equations of inflation theory suggest that it is highly probable that there are other universes. If equations of inflation theory can suggest that probably there are other universes, then following the path taken by the scientists we can also equally claim here that equations of SR suggest that probably there is a God.

Scientists consider multiverse as highly probable, because mathematics of inflation theory suggests there may be other universes. But these same scientists refuse to consider God as probable, although in this case also there is the mathematical support of SR behind this God. This shows that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth.

If one supports the claim made by the scientists about the probable existence of the multiverse, then how will he/she oppose our claim about the probable existence of God, without being partial and biased?

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

The reason as to why theists call their God spaceless, timeless and immaterial is the recognition of the fact that if the universe has a beginning, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy. Therefore when we say that the universe has a beginning, we mean to say that its space, time, matter and energy have a beginning. Now the question is: can the universe have a beginning from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy? If the source already contained space, time, matter and energy, then that would mean that space, time, matter and energy were already there. If space, time, matter and energy were already there, then that would further mean that the universe was already there. If the universe was already there, then why do we again say that the universe has a beginning?

The above reasoning shows that if the universe has a beginning at all, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy because in that case it will imply that the universe was already there. Therefore the beginning of the universe will always mean that it can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only. As the universe can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only, so the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should always remain zero, as otherwise one will have to explain as to whence appear the extra space, extra time, extra matter and extra energy that were not already there at the beginning.

So for a universe having a beginning this question must have an answer: how does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?

Only a beginningless, eternal universe will not give us any such trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Only two things can make me convinced that there is no God:

1) If science can show that this universe does not need any God; and

2) If science can show that God of the theistic description cannot exist.

Regarding 1), it should be said that no one on this earth can claim that he/she is omniscient. Therefore no one on this earth can claim that he/she knows with absolutely certainty that there is no God. However scientists can come to know that there is no God if they can show that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god. No doubt this is a very lengthy process indeed, but at the end of this lengthy process one can with some certainty say that the universe does not need any God.

However it has already been shown here1 that the origin of the universe has not been explained properly by the scientists.

The above shows that science has not yet been able to explain everything of nature by natural means. In such a situation how will the scientists convince us that this universe does not need any God?

Regarding 2) it may be asked: which God? This is because there are thousands of religions on earth and each religion has its own concept of God. I have already made this point clear here2.

This God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

So in order to show that this God having the above attributes cannot exist, scientists will have to show that no one or nothing in this universe can be spaceless and timeless. Then it can very easily be argued that this God does not exist, because this God is said to be spaceless and timeless whereas science has already shown that no one or nothing can be spaceless and timeless. But here science has done just the opposite to what it was supposed to do; it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. That means here also science has failed in its endeavour to show that God of the theistic description cannot exist. Here their failure has a much deeper negative impact on us than their failure in the first case, because once they have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless then it becomes next to impossible for them to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile now and all their arguments against God will fall on deaf ears only.

Here I want to add one more point. If we are to bring in a God at all, then we will bring him in not as a mere observer but as the creator of the universe only. So in order to show that this creator God does not exist I think it will be sufficient if scientists can show that the universe needs no creation because it has no beginning, or that even if it has a beginning then that beginning can be easily explained without invoking any kind of god. But I have already shown that science has failed here and so we are not at all convinced that this universe does not need any God.

Scientists have failed to convince us that God does not exist.

 

 

Reference:

1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/a-fundamental-flaw-in-the-thesis-a-universe-from-nothing-part-i/

2.  https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/god-cannot-be-defined-gods-attributes-can-only-be-described/

.

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? PART I

Atheists do have some deep-seated basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.

The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:

  • There is nothing supernatural; and
  • Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.

However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.

In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.

Me

‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’

This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.

Atheist1

“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.

Me

Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.

Atheist1

“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.

“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.

“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.

“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.

Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.

Me

From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.

Atheist1

“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.

“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”

In simple terms:

  1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
  2. The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.
  3. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.

“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.

“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.

Me

Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”

But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.

So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant galaxy, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?

Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?

On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?

Here there are only two possibilities:

1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;

2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.

If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.

If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.

Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.

Here Atheist1 is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:

1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:

2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and

3) Distance is also variable.

Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that mathematics of SR is wrong.

Atheist2

So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem? 

Me

Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time. 

Atheist2

‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’

That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.

So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time. 

Me

A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do. 

Atheist2

‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’

Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.

Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.

‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’

No, just that photons don’t experience time.

‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’

If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation. 

Me

‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’

So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted. 

Atheist2

‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’

No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.

‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’

No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete. 

Me

There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and

2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.

Property of Hardness

Recently I put the following question to two persons both of whom are atheists:

“Can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself?” 

Reply from one person was this: “That does not make sense.”

However the second person’s reply was that it is sand. After getting this reply I wrote back to him again:

“So you are saying that sand has the property of hardness although it is not hard itself. As sand is not hard itself and as despite that it has the property of hardness, so do you think it has received this property of hardness from something outside of it?”

Perhaps my reply alarmed him somehow and so he changed his stand immediately. He wrote back to me this:

“I would like you to stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.

“Single grain of sand is hard. On scale of hardness it is about 6-7 I think. But the sand itself, consisting from millions of grains is not that hard.

“So that philosophical thing you were trying to say is just… not relevant I think.”

After getting this reply I further wrote back to him:

“My question to you was this: can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself?

“And your reply was this: sand.

“Although I was shocked by your reply, yet I did not express my shock. Rather I wanted to proceed with whatever you have said as a reply. A hard thing will have the property of hardness simply because it is hard and not due to any other reason or factor lying outside of it. But if there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then we cannot say the same thing about it that it has the property of hardness because it is hard. In that case we will have to admit that it must have this property of hardness due to some reason or factor lying outside of it.

“Then you made everything clear. You admitted that single grain of sand is hard. So you are also admitting that a thing can have the property of hardness if, and only if, it is hard and not due to any other reason or factor lying outside of it. This is because if something can have the property of hardness due to some reason or factor lying outside of it, then in that case a thing that is not hard itself can also have this property.

“Now what I am going to write is for the sake of argument only. I am not asserting anything here.

“Let us now suppose that what is really impossible has actually become possible, that there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself. In that case what will we have to conclude from this? We will have to conclude that the thing in question must have received this so-called property of hardness from something external to it (say A). Now it may be the case that A has also received this property from B, B has received it from C and so on ad infinitum. So here there will be an infinite regress. In order to stop this infinite regress we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a hard thing in nature from which the thing in question could have received its property of hardness.

“That means if we find a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then that thing will give us the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature.

“Am I clear up to this point?”

The above appeared to him as probability babble and he expressed his impatience to waste time in probability babble.

Now I want to know what should be the take of a rational person on this? If there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then can we not conclude from this that that thing is giving us the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature?

 

On God and Time

I

Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it. Here are some examples:

G.E. Moore pointed out that if time is unreal then there are no temporal facts: nothing is past, present or future, and nothing is earlier or later than anything else. But, plainly, it is false that there are no temporal facts, for it is a fact that I am presently inscribing this sentence and that my breakfast yesterday preceded my lunch.1

  • Richard M. Gale

First of all, what can be meant by saying that time is unreal? If we really meant what we say, we must mean that such statements as “this is before that” are mere empty noise, like “twas brillig.” If we suppose anything less than these – as for example, that there is a relation between events which puts them in the same order as the relation of earlier and later, but that it is a different relation – we shall not have made any assertion that makes any real change in our outlook. It will be merely like supposing that Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name. We have to suppose that there are no “events” at all; there must be only the one vast whole of the universe, embracing whatever is real in the misleading appearance of a temporal procession. There must be nothing in reality corresponding to the apparent distinction between earlier and later events. To say that we are born, and then grow, and then die, must be just as false as to say that we die, then grow small, and finally are born. The truth of what seems an individual life is merely the illusory isolation of one element in the timeless and indivisible being of the universe. There is no distinction between improvement and deterioration, no difference between sorrows that end in happiness and happiness that ends in sorrow. If you find a corpse with a dagger in it, it makes no difference whether the man died of the wound or the dagger was plunged in after death. Such a view, if true, puts an end, not only to science, but to prudence, hope, and effort; it is incompatible with worldly wisdom, and – what is more important to religion – with morality.2

  • Bertrand Russell

But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum.  Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “We will never admit that time is unreal. Then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how this time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier emotional outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? Thus spake Einstein when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died:

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.3

And thus spake scientist Paul Davies:

The most profound puzzle of all is the fact that whatever we may experience mentally, time does not pass, nor there exist a past, present and future. These statements are so stunning that most scientists lead a sort of dual life, accepting them in the laboratory, but rejecting them without thought in the daily life.4

Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?

II

God is said to be spaceless and timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless and timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S may mean:

  1. a) Nothing was/is spaceless and timeless in this universe (A),
  2. b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless and timeless here (B),
  3. c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless and timeless here (C).

It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become as meaningless as the word “brillig” (cited by Russell in the quotation mentioned above). By the word “brillig” we cannot indicate a person, a thing, an action, a property, a relation, or any other thing. Similarly, if S means A, then by the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless and timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in the future, then time will not be unreal in the future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, it is none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no correspondence whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.

Now can we accept B as the proper meaning of S? No, we cannot. Because there is no real difference in meaning between this sentence and S. It is like saying that the Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name (Russell). So, if S is true, then it can only mean that not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless and timeless. Now, what is this “something else” (SE)? Is it still in the universe? Or, was it in the past? Here there are two possibilities:

  1. a) In the past there was something in this universe that was spaceless and timeless,
  2. b) That spaceless and timeless thing (STT) is still there.

We know that the second possibility will not be acceptable to atheists and scientists. So we will proceed with the first one. If STT was in the past, then was it in the very recent past? Or, was it in the universe billions and billions of years ago? Was only a tiny portion of the universe in spaceless and timeless condition? Or, was the whole universe in that condition? Modern science tells us that before the big bang that took place 13.8 billion years ago there was neither space, nor time. Space and time came into being along with the big bang only. So we can say that before the big bang this universe was in a spaceless and timeless state. So it may be that this is the STT. Is this STT then that SE of which mystics spoke when they said that God is spaceless and timeless? But this STT cannot be SE for several reasons. This is because it was there 13.8 billion years ago. And man appeared on earth only 2 to 3 million years ago. And mystical literatures are at the most 2500 years old, if not even less than that. So, if we now say that STT is SE, then we will have to admit that mystics have somehow come to know that almost 13.8 billion years ago this universe was in a spaceless and timeless condition, which is unbelievable. Therefore we cannot accept the proposition that STT is SE. The only other alternative is that this SE was not in the external world at all. As scientist Victor J. Stenger has said, so we can also say that this SE was in the mystics’ head only. But if SE was in the mystics’ head only, then why was it not kept buried there? Why was it necessary for the scientists to drag it in the outside world, and then to show as to how a state of timelessness could be reached? If the mystics’ sense of timelessness was in no way connected with the external world, then how will one justify scientists’ action here? Did these scientists think that the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world? And so, when these mystics got their sense of timelessness from their head only and not from any other external source, then that should only be construed as a state of timelessness in the real world? And therefore, as scientists they were obliged to show as to how that state could be reached?

We can conclude this article with the following observations: if mystical experience is a hallucination, then SE cannot be in the external world. Because in that case the mystics’ sense of spacelessness and timelessness will have a correspondence with some external fact, and therefore it will no longer remain a hallucination. But if SE is in the mystics’ head only, then that will also create a severe problem. Because in that case we are admitting that the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists. That is why when the mystics got their sense of timelessness from their brain, that sense was treated by these scientists as a state of timelessness in the real world, and accordingly they proceeded to explain as to how that state could be reached. And we end up this article with this absurd statement: if mystical experience is a hallucination, then the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists.

Reference:

  1. Book: The Philosophy of Time, edited by Richard M. Gale, Publisher: Macmillan, 1962. Introduction to Section Two, The static versus the dynamic temporal, p.69.
  2. Book: Religion and Science, Publisher: Oxford University Press, Chapter: Mysticism, 1961.
  3. Available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Besso
  4. Book: Other Worlds, Publisher: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1980, Prologue, p.14.

 

God’s existence cannot be demonstrated by any experiment. However God’s presence can be detected

In one YouTube comment section one person asked me to briefly describe an experiment by means of which God’s existence can be demonstrated. In reply I have to write to him that God’s existence cannot be demonstrated in this way, however God’s presence can be detected. For that purpose we will have to first posit that there is a God. But before positing any God we will have to first define this God, because there are many religions on earth and each religion has its own concept of God. So who’s God to posit here? Now when we utter the word ‘God’, what do we mean to say by that word? We mean to say that there is a creator that has created everything. That means for us the word ‘God’ is a synonym for creator. As God is the creator of everything, so before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than God. From this we can logically derive what attributes this creator God can possibly have. I have already described those attributes of God in detail here.1 So we will posit that there is a God with those attributes only and with no other attributes.

In this connection we will have to remember one thing. If there is really a God, then this God is not the God of this earth only, but the God of the entire universe. So whatever myths have been created about this God by different religions on earth cannot have any value to other civilizations in outer space if they are really there and therefore we cannot, and should not, define or describe this God based on any one of these myths.

Now the question comes: how the presence of this God can be detected. For this purpose we will denote the universe by U and God by G. If there is a God, then we will write U+G. Otherwise we will simply write U.

Now if U+G, then it may so happen that the mere presence of G will have some direct effects on U, which effects should not be there if U only and which effects can also be detected by scientific method. It may also so happen that even if U+G, the presence of G will have no effects on U. In the second case although there will be a God, yet we will never be able to know the presence of this God by scientific means. However as I have already written that God’s presence can be detected, so I have already assumed that the mere presence of G has some direct effects on U that can be detected by science.

Now what are the effects that the presence of G will have on U? The following will be the effects:

  • One effect is that due to the presence of G volume of U must be zero. This is due to the fact that we have described G as spaceless and all-pervading at the same time. If G was only spaceless but not all-pervading, or if G was only all-pervading but not spaceless, then we would not have said that volume of U must be zero. But G being spaceless and all-pervading at the same time, volume of U cannot be other than zero. This is because spaceless means no space or zero space, whereas all-pervading means G’s presence at each and every point of U. These two combined will cause the volume of U to be zero.
  • Another effect will be that the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space must be zero. That means there will be no real space gap between any two points of space chosen arbitrarily. This is also due to the fact that G is all-pervading and spaceless.
  • Another similar effect will be that there will be no real time gap between any two moments of time. This is due to the fact that G is timeless.
  • Space and time will be relative due to the fact that G is spaceless and timeless.

I have already discussed about 2) and 3) elaborately here2 and about 4) here3.

Now let us suppose that scientists have found that all the above effects are really there on U. Will scientists then admit that there is G? No, then they will try to give some excuse. They will then say that all these effects are not due to the presence of G, but due to some other natural reasons. However if they ultimately fail to give any alternative explanation for all the above four, then our explanation will only hold good.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/god-cannot-be-defined-gods-attributes-can-only-be-described/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/spaceless-and-timeless-god-and-quantum-entanglement/
  3. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/yes-there-is-a-god/

 

 

Discover

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void