It is not actually necessary that “fine tuning” of certain parameters will have to exist in reality for proving the existence of God. I think light with its very peculiar properties is sufficient for that purpose.
Light originates within space and time but it goes beyond space and time. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped. So it will be neither in space nor in time during the total period of its existence. Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.
So light originating within space and time goes beyond space and time, because space and time become non-existent for it. And we cannot claim that this is without any cause. As light is not a conscious entity, so neither can we claim here that light has the capability of deciding its own fate that it will go beyond space and time. So this must have been caused by something else. But whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time; it is impossible. Let us suppose that this cause is A and that it lies within space and time. We can now ask two questions about A:
1) Are space and time non-existent for A also?
2) Or, are they not non-existent for A?
If 2), then how can A cause space and time becoming non-existent for light when they are not non-existent for A itself? But if 1), then we will have to ask the same question about A that we were earlier asking about light: what causes space and time becoming non-existent for A, when we know very well that A lies within space and time? So we see that A cannot be the ultimate cause that makes space and time non-existent for light, because here we will have to find out again the cause that makes space and time non-existent for A itself. In this way it can be shown that there will be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing within space and time that can be this cause. So ultimately we will have to go beyond space and time in search of this cause. A cause that lies within space and time is a natural cause, but a cause that lies beyond space and time is not a natural cause; it is a supernatural cause. So the cause that makes space and time non-existent for light is a supernatural cause.
Now one can raise an objection here that it cannot be the case that light is neither in space nor in time, because we can see the star and therefore the photon must have existed in some space-time during its transition from the star to the earth. But in which space and for how long did it exist during this transition? This is because the equations of SR show that both the travel time and the travel distance have become zero for light. So if SR as a theory is correct, then light cannot, and does not, exist in any space for any time.
Some may also think that SR is a bad theory and that it requires immediate replacement, because the conclusions that can be drawn from this theory are so counter-intuitive and contradictory to our commonsensical and everyday notion of existence. Here anybody can offer a better theory if he/she thinks so and get it accepted by the peers before challenging a well-established theory of science.
About light one can also read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011)1
Ref:
God is real 
How is it that light always hits observers traveling at constant but different speed in the same direction, at its own constant speed, irrespective of their respective different speeds ? It must controlled by an intelligence or proximately by an agency of such. (The Hound of Heaven).
This is more comprehensible if we hold that each of us inhabits a world of our own* coordinated by that intelligence, so that the seams only become apparent at the quantum level.
Of course, we enter this world on our own, and, in a real sense, leave it on our own. A Kabbalist is, I believe quoted as saying that when a person dies, a whole world dies with him. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio….
LikeLike
I’ve never thought of light in these terms before, but it’s neat to see how light points back to God.
LikeLike
Thanks for commenting. Your comment gives me confidence that I am doing the right thing for proving the existence of God.
LikeLike
You have proven exactly nothing. Your entire premise is a fallacy. Photons emitted BY a source do not exit space/time because the source ‘dies’. If you actually believe that you, an obvious amateur in the field of physics, can prove something via the mechanism of science that experts in that field have not/cannot, you are deluded beyond description.
You are as deluded as the Muslim clerics who assert Quran science, such as ‘the earth does not spin, because if it did, airplanes could only fly in one direction’.
LikeLike
This is some of the stupidest nonsense I’ve ever seen. Complete idiocy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This type of reaction is quite expected from the atheists. Otherwise why are they atheists? So I am not at all surprised, nor am I hurt by your comment. However I will ask you one question: Before commenting this, have you read the article by Dr. Sascha Vongehr? Please read it; the reference has been given at the end of my article. Before commenting that he has also written some of the stupidest nonsense you have ever seen, please do not forget to read his complete profile also.
However I am quoting some relevant passages from his article here in case you do not bother to read it yourself:
“The light comes to existence in the torch and it may cease to exist in an alien’s eye. The time in between these two events is the light’s life time. For the light, it is its own experienced travel time. There is none. I have a few decades between birth and my inevitable demise, some insects only a single day, but light has no time at all to be. Therefore: It is never! It is not!”
“The faster we go in between A and B, trying to keep up with the light, the shorter the distance becomes for us. This is easily misunderstood and most physicists even explain it incorrectly. So let me not try to explain it in any detail here. Nevertheless, it is true, and moreover, the factor with which the world contracts relative to a moving object is the same factor as that of the time dilation discussed above.
“The conclusion is similar, too: For the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long. There is no distance between A and B. There is no space in between its birthplace in the torch and its death bed in the alien’s eye. There is no place for the light to be, and therefore it cannot be: It is not!”
What I have done in my article is just to show that the cause that sends light beyond space and time cannot lie within space and time. May be you are an atheist, but that does not mean that you are very much opposed to logic and reason. So I will now request you to do one more thing: Please logically explain how it is possible that something that lies within the confines of space and time can still be the cause that sends light beyond space and time. If you can successfully show that it is really possible, then I will have to admit that I have written some of the stupidest nonsense that has ever been written on this planet.
I will put one more question to you: What is spaceless and timeless in this universe that required an explanation from science? I am asking this question simply because science has actually shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Please do not also forget that mystics have repeatedly said about their God that he is spaceless and timeless.
LikeLike
MORE nonsense. LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE A “LIFE SPAN”. It is energy in transit between two points. Energy does not cease to be.
You also need to demonstrate, from a REPUTABLE source, your claim that science has shown the possibility of spaceless and timeless.
LikeLike
You misrepresent what the author (Dr. Sascha Vongehr) says as he explains the phenomenon of light, “The velocity of light, light clocks, entangled photons, and so on – why is it always light? This preoccupation is no coincidence. It comes directly from the fact that light does not actually exist.”
Thats right, light, as we experience it does not exist but we experience the photon hitting our retina and our mind sees this radiation source as “light”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell
Instead of saying “it’s bright outside! I need sunglasses!” we could say, “aghhhh, too many photons are hitting my retinal receptors! I need sunglasses.”
Try that, and see if your family smiles. Mine did. 🙂
The speed at which photons travel is measurable, so is the wavelength
and both can be used as a reference points to measure the speed of other reactions.
You say light leaves the universe, if so, then do photons do too.The universe must expanding with them. Right or wrong, what has that to do with God?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate
http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html
How does all this relate to God? It doesn’t. And you have yet to prove why.
Any philisophical argument meant to prove the existence of ANYTHING just first be contstrained to our understanding of the physical universe. Otherwise it can not be explained. Your understanding of the physical universe is flawed, (as is ours) so how can you assert that God exists based on you thesis, above?
It makes no sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for commenting.
First of all I will have to point out that you have grossly misrepresented what I have actually written in my blog post. Here I do not mean to say that this misrepresentation is deliberate on the part of you; rather it might be due to the fact you have merely misunderstood me.
You have written: ‘You say light leaves the universe…’.
Can you show from my blog post where I have written that light leaves the universe? Actually what I have written is this: ‘Light originates within space and time but it goes beyond space and time. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped. So it will be neither in space nor in time during the total period of its existence. Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.’
Yes, I have written that light ‘goes beyond space and time’. But does that mean that light leaves the universe? If you think that I have actually meant it, then please explain why have I written afterwards that light ‘will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth’? If I meant that light has actually left the universe when it went beyond space and time, then how do you think that it can still be absorbed by something or someone on earth? Is not this earth within the universe? What do you think about it?
So what I actually meant to say was this: Remaining within the universe light still goes beyond space and time, because both space and time become non-existent for it. Dr. Sascha Vongehr has also written that ‘There is no place for the light to be…’ and that ‘light has no time at all to be’. If light does not have any place and time to be, then of course we can say that it goes beyond space and time while still remaining within the universe.
So you cannot find any flaw in my argument here. Neither can you say that my understanding of the physical universe is flawed.
Now let us come to the second part of it. I have shown in my post that the cause that sends light beyond space and time (yes, I am using the same language again, because I cannot find any fault in it, as I do not mean to say by it that light actually leaves the universe) cannot lie within space and time, because there will be a regress problem here. It may be the case that you are a better logician than me. So please show that this cause can lie within space and time without causing any infinite regress at all. I will be really, really grateful to you for that.
LikeLike
Light does not go “beyond space and time.” That is an assertion that you would have to prove scientifically, as it is quite a fantastic claim. If this is so please cite the study and journal that shows this to be true.
Now do you see where the problem with your post originates?
My apologies, but your logic on this particular matter fails at that specific point. It is best to make logical arguments supporting God’s existence that do not contravene rational or empirical evidence, or you run the risk of being easily dismissed. That is the case here.
I wish you the best in everything you do, and for your life. I will no longer be commenting on this thread.
Peace!
LikeLike
Although in my reply I have repeatedly mentioned that light does not leave the universe when it goes beyond space and time, yet it appears from your reply that you are still pretending as if I meant to say just this. And you have made it your excuse for quitting. Perhaps you were thinking how to quit, because you have found that you are unable to face the challenge.
If we leave the subtlety of language behind and simply say that while being within space and time light does not have any place to be nor does it have any time to be (Here I am using the terms used by Dr. Sascha Vongehr; he is a scientist, you can go through his full profile if you want to), you will still find it difficult to locate its cause within space and time, because again there will be a regress problem here. And I requested you to show how this cause can lie within space and time without causing any such regress. Instead you have decided to quit by giving a lame excuse.
Really a sorry affair!
LikeLike
Your claim that light does not leave the universe when it goes beyond space and time is quite fantastik. You said this now two or three times.
Please cite the scientific study that shows that “light can leave space and time” or that light becomes “timeless” (your words not mine) as it travels a billion years between galaxies. Rather than assume my intentions, as you seem to be willing to do, I merely ask you to further explain these ideas. Or do you really intend to prove the existence of your god.
You think me afraid to engage, but l find you evasive and unable to clarify your thinking. Perhaps l will stay and let you experience how poorly you have explained the existence of your god. You have proven nothing so far. I am disappointed.
LikeLike
In your comment you have written: ‘Perhaps l will stay and let you experience how poorly you have explained the existence of your god. You have proven nothing so far. I am disappointed.’
Let me start afresh. In my blog post I have given an example. Light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years away from earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. Now the equations of special theory of relativity (STR) show that both the travel time and travel distance become zero for light. That is why we can say about light that it has no place to be, nor any time to be. In my post I have argued that the cause that makes the travel distance and the travel time zero for light cannot lie within space and time, because in that case there will be an infinite regress, and therefore this cause must be a supernatural cause. Now some reader might say here that she is not convinced by my argument that there is a God. If my argument has failed to convince her, then this cannot be without any reason. One reason may be that she is predetermined to be not convinced by any argument whatsoever that will be offered for the existence of a God. In that case she will never be convinced in her lifetime. Or it may be that my argument is genuinely flawed, and that is why it has failed to convince her and she may even demand from me that I offer some better argument for God that is 100% flawless. But it is not enough to demand that I offer 100% flawless argument; at the same time she must also have to specify what are the flaws in my present argument, as otherwise I will always go on claiming that my argument is 100% flawless. If she thinks that my argument is not flawless, then it becomes her responsibility to show why and how it is flawed. If she now refuses to point out these flaws but still continues to demand some better and flawless argument from me, then from this it will have to be concluded that she has brought a false and baseless charge against me that cannot be substantiated in any way.
So I will again claim here that as per my belief and knowledge I have offered an argument that is 100% flawless. If anybody thinks that it is not flawless, then it is her responsibility to point out where are those flaws.
LikeLike
Is it twice, or three times now that you have stated, that light does not leave the universe when it leaves space and time. Please explain how this is possible. Light does not exist. It is a stream of photons that only become light when they strike our sensors. Do photons become timeless as they travel between galaxies? Please explain this. Your statement said. Photons can travel for a billion years and do not experience time. That is quite profound and misrepresents reality.
Perhaps I should stay and hold you to explaining the fantastic science fiction you have embarked upon. Further more, until you have worked out the empirical and rational parts of the argument you cannot lay claim to the logical fruits. Logic without a foundation in reality is just fantasy. Fantasy.
So your experiment with words has failed, and your attemps to prove the existence of your god have failed. Would you like to join me in my agnosticism.
At least it is honest.
LikeLike
In your comment you have written: ‘Is it twice, or three times now that you have stated, that light does not leave the universe when it leaves space and time.’
Please show by exact quote from my blog post or from the reply comments of mine where I have written exactly these words that light leaves space and time. Otherwise I will be forced to conclude that you are deliberately trying to misquote me. Why are you doing this? What is your purpose?
LikeLike
Himangsu Shekhar Pal you are the one claiming that your words prove the existence of God. I have not dismissed you, I have asked for further clarification. Why are you reluctant to provide that? Are you able? Can you actually prove that your god exists? Instead you seem focused on find fault with the fact that I ask questions. ( I find this typical of faith heads)
You have a lot of heavy lifting ahead of you to prove your claims. More than a simple logic tree can show.
I wait patiently for your reply and your apology.
LikeLike
Our slogan is: If special theory of relativity is not a pseudo-science, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. That means if special theory of relativity is not a pseudo-science, then God is real. If you think that God does not exist, then please show how despite the presence of a spaceless and timeless being in this universe space and time can still have absolute values. If you can successfully show this, then we will also have to admit that there is no God.
Period.
LikeLike
I read the links that you asked me to read. I remain unconvinced.
LikeLike
I have requested you to go through the following three links:
1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/atheists-and-believers/
2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/can-there-be-two-types-of-timelessness-one-mystical-another-scientific/
3. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/will-there-ever-be-any-physical-explanation-for-x-if-x-is-not-physically-real/
You have claimed that you have read all the three links listed above. But your claim is not true, because the status report of the blog posts is showing something different. It is showing that the post ‘Atheists and a Believer’ has recorded one hit today, but the other two posts have not recorded any hit, neither today nor yesterday. So how can one believe that you have read all the links?
LikeLike
Tricky, deleting my comments on the links themselves. I was there and commented.
LikeLike
Please specify which comment of yours has been deleted. Otherwise I will have to think that you have again brought a false and baseless charge against me. You have posted a comment in “Atheists and a Believer” on February 20, 2016 and it is still intact there. I have also checked your other comments in various other posts; none of them have been deleted. So which comment are you talking about that has been deleted?
LikeLike
Thank you for clarifying that my posts refuting your claims are indeed still posted.Must have been a glitch in the system that made them not show up.
LikeLike
Just passing, having fun reading this non-sense…
Doesn’t it strike you that none of the bright minds that really understand the topic you are talking about (e.g. the theoretical physicists) share your views and conclusions, even only remotely?
By the way you mention the “fine tuning” in the title but it is nowhere discussed, not even mentioned in the article… wierd.
Anyway, no need to go into a pseudo-sophisticated metaphorical discussion to refute this “evidence”. It stipulates that the probability that the fundamental parameters of the Standard Model of physics take values compatible with life are so small, that there must have been someone (e.g. God) to choose them.
But this is absurd, because people using this argument fails to see that it implies that God is not all powerful and didn’t pre-existed the laws physics, but merely turned the cursors of the device at the good positions… You see, God is normally defined as the creator of the Universe AND of its laws, so he could have chosen to build a world where there is no apparent “fine tuning”!
So if a God really exists, the apparent “fine tuning” may be a trick of Him to mock simple minds that erroneously use this observation as a pseudo-evidence of Him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all let me know whether you are a theist or an atheist before I make any comment against the non-sense that you have written here. However I can make one comment right now. I have not discussed fine-tuning argument simply because I do not think it necessary for proving the existence of God, because existence of God can still be proven even if there is no fine-tuning.
LikeLike
A photon at a given moment at travel occupies a point in space.
The distance between a star a billion light years away from earth does not become zero for a photon travelling at “c”.
Can you show the math for your assertion please?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my post I have given a reference to an article by Dr. Sascha Vongehr who is a scientist in his real life. If you had gone through his article, you would have found that I have written nothing about light that is scientifically incorrect. However I am mentioning here the two relevant equations of special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2……. (1)
t1 = t(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2……. (2)
From these two equations you will find that when v=c, value of l1 and t1 will become zero. That means for light travel distance and travel time both become zero. That is why Dr. Vongehr has also written that for light this whole universe is zero millimeters long and that light takes no time to travel any distance at all.
LikeLike
Can you link to the peer review of his work please? A book is not a source. Anyone can write anything they want in a book. If not peer reviewed and passed it may be written by a scientist but it can not be considered until then.
A photon occupies an area in space. It may be travelling at light speed but this does not change the distance from 1 billion light years to 0. a photon travels at a certain speed in a certain direction between 2 distances. That is a given. Just because it is a photon travelling at c this does not alter the distance.
It appears you have found 1 author that says what you need and use for source. This can only be considered confirmation bias. Please link to his peer review.
LikeLike
In science two theories are treated not only as a theory, but also as an well-established scientific fact. The difference between a theory and a fact is this: A theory may be falsified at any time in future, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. These two theories of science that are also facts at the same time are Darwin’s theory of evolution and Einstein’s special theory of relativity (STR). Scientists who regularly study the sub-atomic particle world even say that it would have been impossible for them to study this world if STR was not there.
It is not true that I have relied upon only one author for establishing my points. I am studying STR for more than 30 years. The two well-established effects of STR are time dilatation and length contraction; there are many evidences in support of these two effects of STR. And at the speed of light time dilatation and length contraction occur maximally. Even infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero for light.
You need not have to rely upon my words here; you can search from Google and find out the facts about light yourself. Or you can even ask a physicist about light. For this you will have to go to Google first, then type “Ask a physicist”. When the link will appear, you put your question to him.
LikeLike
From your last comment two conclusions can be drawn about you:
1) You are still in your childhood infancy. That is why you require continuous spoon feeding from your adult parents (Here, peers);
2) As you are still in your infancy, so your intelligence has failed to grow sufficiently.
With this low level of intelligence it is not possible for you to draw any conclusion from the two very simple equations of special theory of relativity. Otherwise you yourself could have easily verified from these equations that at the speed of light both the travel time and the travel distance become zero.
LikeLike
From a layman’s perspective I don’t see that any of these arguments, whether for or against, are very persuasive because they cannot be understood.
A simple answer please – If the universe tends to a state of higher disorder, how have human beings evolved into higher life forms. Please don’t answer the question by telling me amoebas are more complex than a human.
LikeLike
The tendency to a higher state of disorder is the Law of Entropy- which is also the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time progresses the availability of energy to do useful work in a system decreases. Entropy also reflects the number of ways a system can be reconfigured. When the system has a temperature of absolute zero Entropy is zero and it cannot be reconfigured so no changes are possible so no life is possible.
The reason Entropy it is not inconsistent with abiogenesis, evolution and planetary formation from the accretion of stardust oroginating from the big bang, is because the amount of energy in the four dimensions of space we perceive as the Universe was high and the Entropic decay rate is low. Essentially, the eventual heat death of the universe is not inconsistent with a moment of life in the history of the universe.
LikeLike
Some issues:
Spacetime is bendy and stretchy. So a light source causes ripples in the quantum field causing photons to emanate across it. The reason light from distant sources appears red-shifted is because of the stretching of space time in the expanding universe. Just because this distance existed outside the size of the universe when the universe was smaller does not mean the light ceased to exist. It is also completely wrong to say that a photon travels zero distance in the course of one billion years. The proposition is nonsensical. It is like saying the light produced by the Sun right now does not exist and will not exist for the c8.5 minutes it takes to reach an observer on Earth.
Also within the universe you do get timeless states. Anything with an infinite density exists outside time just as anything without mass exists outside time. Just because these things when measured relative to themselves are timeless (such as a point singularity inside a black hole) does not mean time has ceased to exist or they exist outside the universe. We can still observe the event horizon of a black hole confirming its existence while the singularity inside it exists in a timeless state.
These things are all naturally caused.
LikeLike
You have written: ‘It is also completely wrong to say that a photon travels zero distance in the course of one billion years. The proposition is nonsensical.’
As whatever I have written is based on the equations of SR only, so when you are saying that the proposition is nonsensical, you are actually indirectly saying that as a theory SR is nonsensical, because from one of the equations of SR this nonsensical proposition is made. If a scientific theory helps us make such nonsensical propositions, then that theory itself must be nonsensical. But whether a scientific theory is nonsensical or not cannot be established by logic or argument alone, it will have to be experimentally established. Has it been experimentally established that SR is a nonsensical scientific theory? Can you give any citation? Otherwise your criticism has got no value.
For this you can read the article ‘Why Einstein will never be wrong’ by Brian Koberlein here:
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html
You can also read my article ‘Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory?’ here:
LikeLike