Who Created God?

Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give the most plausible and logically sound answer to this age-old question. Let us first see what Hawking has written in his book “A Brief History of Time”. In page 136 of that book he has written that the idea of inflation could explain why there is so much matter in the universe.  Then he has given the total number of particles that are there in the region of the universe that one can observe, this number being 1 with eighty zeroes after it. If one asks here as to where all these particles did come from, then his answer will be that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But this answer is not a stopper, because it further raises another question of where the energy came from. And his answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. (Chapter 8: The Origin and Fate of the Universe)

Here we see that questions are raised one after another. But when it is said that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero, no further question is asked. So the clue is this: if we can somehow arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regress. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about his origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support to our project

God is a Being. Therefore God will have an existence as well as an essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common saying about God that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero and change is zero. But how are we to show that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless and changeless? From the special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only will be a spaceless and timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless and timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore he will have all the properties of light. Here is the evidence.

Scientists have shown that the total energy of the universe is always zero. If the total energy is zero, then the total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking that God into consideration. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not believe that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because neither do they know nor do they believe that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying so they will admit that there is a God. They cannot say that the behind-the-picture God has always remained behind the picture, and that he has in no way come into the picture when they have made this calculation, because by saying so they will again admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on the God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the fact of the matter is this: if God is really there, then the total mass and the total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God has no mass, no energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be some sort of light. So, if God is really there, then God will also be “light”, and therefore he will be spaceless and timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, having no mass and no energy. Zero space, zero time, zero mass and zero energy.                      

Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can he be cruel if there is no second being other than God himself? So, if God is cruel, then is he cruel to himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom he can show his love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere him, for the simple reason that he is not our creator!

It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can he be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahman, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; having no name and no quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that their God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.

So, why should there be any need of creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?

But if there is someone who is intelligent enough, then he will not stop asking questions here. He will point out to another infinite regress. If God is light, then he will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regress is thus stopped. But what about the second regress? How, and from what, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully stopped the first regress? So, here is another infinite regress. But we need not have to worry much about this regress, because this problem can easily be solved with the concept of The Whole.

THE WHOLE

The Whole (TW) is defined in this way: it is that which contains within itself everything that is there. So by its very definition there cannot be anything outside of TW, because we have already defined it as that which contains within itself everything that is there. So whatever will be there will be within TW only and thus there cannot be anything outside it. So if we say that there is something outside of TW, then it will no longer remain TW, because in that case there will be something outside of it. Thus it will be contradictory to claim that there can be anything at all outside of TW.

Before proceeding further I should say that the above is just a definition and nothing else. No claim is being made that TW actually exists, or that it has the slightest possibility to exist.

As there cannot be anything at all outside of TW, so there will be no space, no time, no matter, simply nothing outside of it. Thus we can say that TW is neither in any space nor in any time. This simply follows from its definition itself. TW being neither in space nor in time will thus be spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.

TW being placed neither in space nor in time cannot change at all. Change can occur either in space or in time. So TW cannot change, because it is placed neither in space nor in time. Being not in space we cannot say about this TW that it was ‘there’ before, and that it is ‘here’ now. Being not in time we cannot say about this TW that it was ‘this’ earlier, and that it has become ‘that’ later on. So there can never be any question of change for TW.

TW will also be deathless, immortal. This is because death is also some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. For TW this very next moment will never come, because TW is not in time. Therefore TW can never cease to be.

Now it can be shown that TW which cannot change at all will also be unborn and uncreated. An entity that is created comes into existence from non-existence, and so for it once there was a change, and thus it is not changeless. So TW, for which no change can ever occur, can never be created. It will be uncreated.

Similarly it can be shown that TW, for which no change can ever occur, was never born, because being born means coming into being from non-being. This is also a change. So TW, for which no change can ever occur, will also be unborn.

It can also be shown that an entity for which no change can ever occur is without any beginning and without an end. It is everlasting. Something beginning to exist means change, and existence of something coming to an end also means change. So for an entity, for which no change can ever occur, there will be no beginning and no end; for it there will be neither any coming into existence nor any going into nonexistence.

It can also be shown that TW will always be one. TW being The Whole will encompass everything, and thus there will be nothing else left outside of it that can be another TW. So as a result there can always be only one TW.

It can also be shown that TW will be all-pervading. If there are two TWs, then none of them can be all-pervading. Because if one TW is all-pervading thus occupying all the space, then where will be the space left for the other TW? So in case there are two TWs, then none of them will be all-pervading. But as we have already seen that there can be only one TW, so it will be all-pervading.

It can also be shown that TW is non-composite. The main reason as to why TW cannot be composite is that there is no space at all outside of TW where the mutilated portions of TW can be thrown away or dumped, because there is no space outside of TW. So TW cannot be mutilated at all, and not even an infinitesimal part of this TW can be separated from the main body of TW. This is because after separating that infinitesimal part of TW from its main body we will find that we will have to keep that separated portion at the very same place from where it has been separated, because there can never be any extra space available at all to dump even this infinitesimal part of TW, and thus all our attempts to mutilate this TW in every possible way is always bound to become a failure.

Thus it can be shown that The Whole, by virtue of it being The Whole, or simply by default, will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without a beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regress will be there.

Here it should be mentioned that actually God is The Whole, because we usually say about God that initially there was only God, and that there was no one else, nothing else other than God.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Who Created God?”

  1. Himangsu,
    I would like to add some thoughts to the issue regarding The Whole. It is perfectly legitimate to call God any name according to the light one receives. God never revealed him by name, only by character according to Christian tradition. I can associate The Whole with zero in the sense that zero can be interpreted as representing everything/all.
    Consider the number line with zero at the centre and negative 1 (that is -1) to its left and positive (that is +1) to its right, -2 to its left and +2 to its right and so on.
    Start off with zero and add +1 and -1 The result is zero. Add -2 and +2 and the result stays zero. Ad –infinity and +infinity and the result stays zero. Thus it can be said that zero represents nothing AND everything. Creation, in some sense, is then dividing zero/nothing and achieves something.
    The unchanging, eternal, The Whole, achieved the real and only miracle thinkable in that it, in spite of the fetters of timeless unchanging existence, according to its immense potential, actualize its potential, amongst other things, in its personhood by trinitising. The door was then opened to actualize all potential spiritual and or material. Keep in mind that in timelessness potential and the actualizing of the potential is not a process with a history. As for beings in time, such a process stays the same situation – potential or actuality of the potential.

    Like

    1. Here is an interesting video that explains HOW AN ETERNAL GOD WITH NO BEGINNING MIGHT HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND STILL BE ETERNAL WITH NO BEGINNING. The you-tube video is located at https://youtu.be/ApYOxD3EIkg and is from a website called uniquebibleanswers.com .

      Like

  2. Your writing is impressive and thoughtful … and pretty much above my grade level. 😉 Nevertheless, I did enjoy reading your perspective.

    However, you made one statement that, for me, discounted everything else you had written.

    In your third paragraph, you wrote: God is a Being.; that is, a living thing. As soon as I read this, all your extensive reasoning about The Whole lost its power.

    Like

      1. I’m not sure I would categorize god as a “non-being” because in Tao (which I’m definitely not an expert in), this simply means “something we cannot see.”

        For me, it is not a matter of what fills the “space.” It is more that “god” simply is “not.”

        Like

  3. Quote: For me, it is not a matter of what fills the “space.” It is more that “god” simply is “not.”
    What do you mean to say by this? Do you mean to say that there is no God? Or, do you mean to say that beingness cannot be attributed to God?

    Like

  4. Sekharpal, you recently posted a comment on my blog website suggesting I read your article “Does God exist?” above. I did read it and I have responded to the content of the article. You can read my response here: http://ben-bennetts.com/2015/01/19/the-religion-business-extract/#comments

    You might also be interested in my most recent blog about your article— http://ben-bennetts.com/2016/01/01/does-father-christmas-exist/

    Regards,

    Ben

    Like

    1. I have already posted something in your blog against your response. However I want to add one more point here: Even if it is found that the total energy of the universe is not zero, still then the existence of God can be proved at ease. Only that in that case the question ‘Who created God?’ cannot be answered properly. Another point is that in my post I have not tried at all to prove the existence of God. I have only shown that if the total energy of the universe is zero, then the above question can be answered very easily.
      Regards.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s