Can There be Two Types of Timelessness: One Mystical, Another Scientific?


Mystics who have claimed that they have direct experience of God have repeatedly and unanimously told us one thing: Time is unreal. If mystical experience gives the mystic the sensation that time is unreal and if one wants to establish that mystical experience is nothing but a mere hallucination, then he must have to show here that the mystics were wrong in holding that time is unreal. Here anyone who has minimum common sense will understand that the best possible way to do this is to show that time can never become unreal. But here science has done just the opposite; it has actually shown as to how and when time can become unreal. Instead of myself saying anything about how time actually becomes unreal, I will let one scientist speak for me here. Dr. Sacha Vongehr is a physicist and philosopher and he writes regularly in the science blog Science 2.0. In an article ‘The Fundamental Nature of Light’1 published in that blog on February 3rd, 2011 he has written that as per relativity ‘light has no time to see’. What he meant to say here was that for light ‘time would stop and the travel time between any two points, even between here and the edge of the observable universe, would be exactly zero’.

So we very clearly see here that science has definitely shown as to how time can become unreal, because it has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. But we have already said that in order to show that mystical experience is a hallucination, one must have to show that mystics’ view regarding time was completely mistaken. But science has miserably failed to do that, because instead of showing that time can in no way become unreal it has actually shown as to how it can become unreal, thus providing ample support to mystical view about time. As science has in no way contradicted mystical view here, so by what kind of logic is it established that mystical experience is a hallucination? If mystical experience can no longer be discarded as a mere hallucination, then by what kind of logic is it established that God does not exist? We can also ask the following question here: Is this the right way to show that God does not exist?

If I say that time is unreal and if you want to prove me wrong and if I do possess some minimum common sense also, then I will definitely not expect from you that you would support my contention by showing to me as to how time can become unreal. Thus it appears from above that probably some scientists lack this minimum common sense who claim that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination.

In the year 2001 I had debated with an atheist regarding the existence of a spaceless and timeless God. In one of the e-mails he wrote to me: ‘What is “timeless”? We don’t know of anything “timeless”.’

But afterwards he was compelled to admit the following: ‘Some mystics might have said God is timeless, but I’m sure they didn’t have in mind the “timelessness” we see when we look at Einstein’s equations.’

In the latter case although he was admitting that science had dealt with timelessness, yet he was making some distinction here: Mystics’ timelessness is not the same as scientists’ timelessness.

Let the readers judge themselves as to whether there can be two types of timelessness: One mystical, another scientific.

It might be the case that there are more than one entities in this universe that are timeless, but is it possible that there are two types of timelessness?






3 thoughts on “Can There be Two Types of Timelessness: One Mystical, Another Scientific?”

  1. No, there can not be two types of timelessness or at the least, you cannot show that mysticism exists through the five senses. Time is certainly not unreal, in fact it can be calculated in regard to the speed of light, gravity, and by looking at the ticking hands of your watch. when gravity waves passed the earth recently scientists measured the fluctuations in time by using light beams pointed at a 90 degree angle from one another. This science is solid and shows that photons are not “timeless” when they travel. And in fact they have a a lot of energy but because of the speed they travel (speed of light) their mass goes to zero. (E=MC2) In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of “particles”: photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn’t really apply to them, we can certainly bring these “particles” of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and “particles” of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful. (

    The atheist you debated in 2001 was correct to say “timelessness does not exist”. The reason is because as long as there is matter, there will be gravity and a universe, and time. the three are linked. A photon cannot have zero rest mass, with measurable energy and be timeless. the equations would fall apart.

    You have tried to create something mystical where it simply does not exist. Your flawless argument has a pretty big flaw.

    So now that I have refuted your argument, you are obligated to deny the existence of your god and become an atheist. 🙂

    Have a nice day.


    1. I can’t speak for the author of the article, but your “refutation” of a particular argument for the “mystical” ie., those who go thru a particular type of mystical experience and conclude that “Time is unreal,” is hardly a reason to “deny the existence of… god and become an atheist.” 1) The language of the “mystic” need not be take literally, 2) or the mystic’s interpretation of the experience may be incorrect, 3) not all who go thru a “mystical” experience claim time to be unreal (in fact, many who have gone thru such experiences do not even enter into this question of whether time is real or not, IOW, it is irrelevant to the experience), 4) for some, time is very much part of the experience.

      In Pascal’s Night of Fire, with a mind of a mathematician/physicist and a philosopher, he carefully noted the exact day, occasion, and time when he encountered something that his mathematical and philosophical mind cannot neatly and nicely categorize. Something utterly life-changing happened to Pascal on the night of November 23 in 1654. He was by himself that evening when suddenly it happened and. Pascal tried his best to describe the experience in a piece of paper–

      “The year of grace 1654, Monday, 23 November, feast of St. Clement, pope and martyr, and others in the martyrology. Vigil of St. Chrysogonus, martyr, and others. From about half past ten at night until about half past midnight,


      GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob
      not of the philosophers and of the learned.
      Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
      GOD of Jesus Christ.
      My God and your God.
      Your GOD will be my God.
      Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD.
      He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel.
      Grandeur of the human soul.
      Righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you.
      Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
      I have departed from him:
      They have forsaken me, the fount of living water.
      My God, will you leave me?
      Let me not be separated from him forever.
      This is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and the one that you sent, Jesus Christ.
      Jesus Christ.
      Jesus Christ.
      I left him; I fled him, renounced, crucified.
      Let me never be separated from him.
      He is only kept securely by the ways taught in the Gospel:
      Renunciation, total and sweet.
      Complete submission to Jesus Christ and to my director.
      Eternally in joy for a day’s exercise on the earth.
      May I not forget your words. Amen.”

      This experience so penetrated Pascal’s core being that he sewed the note in the lining of his coat, and thus was with him all the time. This was discovered shortly after he died in 1662. A housekeeper discovered this while sorting through Pascal’s belongings. The housekeeper noticed something sewn in the lining of Pascal’s coat. The housekeeper retrieved it and saw the handwritten note Pascal made about his experience.

      Include in this list some luminaries such as Simon Weil, Augustine, CS Lewis, Mortimer Aldler, et al. (i don’t belong to this list but i have my own story to tell), who encountered experiences that led their minds and hearts to embrace faith in Christ. Dean Overman devoted 3 full chapters on this in his tightly argued book A Case for the Existence of God; Ch.10: Evidential force of religious experience: If God is a person, God can be known to only a very limited extent by abstract reasoning and is more fully known by personal acquaintance in an I–Thou relationship with the Wholly Other, Ch.11: Recorded experiences of encounters with the divine bear witness to a way of knowing that includes Kierkegaard’s Kendskab, Buber’s I-Thou, Otto’s Wholly Other, and Marcel’s Mystery, Ch12: These nine witnesses testify to another way of knowing that is compatible with the empirical and the metaphysical rational ways of knowing, but is beyond the describable and requires personal participation, commitment, and personal transformation. Any who is serious in investigating the question should consult works such as Overman (; more in-depth is Philip Wiebe’s God and Other Spirits (

      Now it needs to be pointed out clearly that there’s a radical difference between the Judeo-Christian “mystical” ie., supernatural encounters, as against the eastern (hiduism, buddhism, daoism et al.) mystical experiences. The Judeo-Christian experience deeply involves the mind and reason (for the biblical God is an absolute Rational Mind, who, in the person of Christ, embraced space-time history and took on an earthly/bodily time-bound existence), while the eastern even brushes the rational off (the rational/reason is, in fact, seen as a hindrance in experiencing the ultimate essence of reality, which is nonrational (brahman, nirvana, the tao). For the Judeo-Christian, time is real, it is a creation of God that emerged at the big bang (when the processes of events, observed as change, began–in fact, it can be said that what we call time may just be this, occurring events–at the micro and macro levels–manifesting in change occurrences).

      Does this “prove” God? Scientifically, of course not. For a simple reason: this is not the province of science. To demand that science be the bar to prove these matters is not even wrong, it’s simply is incoherent. Definitely this phenomena does not deserve the cavalier dismissal of atheists. As humans (even atheists are humans!), experience play a HUGE role in life; empiricists would tell us that! I understand that not all experiences are equal. But some experiences deserve to be taken with a degree of seriousness. These experiences definitely opens up a window outside the myopic world of materialism, and point to a reality behind what we call the “natural.”


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s