Will there ever be any physical explanation for ‘X’, if ‘X’ is not physically real?

In a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith on March 22, 1996 Dr. Craig has thus given a theistic notion of God in his opening arguments:

“And then on the rest of the page it’s fairly obvious how I deduce the remainder of these attributes which form the central core of the theistic notion of God: a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God.”1

Here it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless. Not only in the three major religions originating from the Middle East, but in the eastern religions also God has been repeatedly mentioned as spaceless and timeless. Actually the two most common attributes of God that can be found in various religions throughout the world are his spacelessness and timelessness. Now by very simple reasoning it can be shown that the existence of a spaceless and timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. We say God is spaceless and timeless, which means for God space and time are non-real, non-existent, whereas for us human beings they are very much real, existent. So if God is really there, then in that case the same space and time will have two different values for different beings: For God they will have null values, whereas for us human beings they will have non-zero values. So if God is really there, then in that case space and time cannot be absolute, because for those two to be absolute they must have to have the same values for everybody. Thus the presence of such a God will make space and time relative, and science has also shown that space and time are indeed relative. If this reasoning is correct, then I think that there is no justified ground for discarding mystical experience as a mere hallucination. This is one point.

The second point is that if God is really there, then in that case there will be a permanent state of timelessness in this universe, because we say God is timeless. God does not exist will then mean there is no such state of timelessness. God does not exist therefore means no need is there for science to show how a state of timelessness can be reached or attained, because there is no such state in this universe that requires an explanation from science. But despite that science has shown how a state of timelessness can be reached, because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. If there is no state of timelessness in the universe, then why was it at all necessary for science to show as to how that state could be reached?

If the scientific community throughout the world thinks that this timeless state has no physical reality, then we can put the following question to them: “Will there ever be any physical explanation for ‘X’, if ‘X’ is not physically real?”



  1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-1996#section_1



2 thoughts on “Will there ever be any physical explanation for ‘X’, if ‘X’ is not physically real?”

  1. Reachable but untouchable , knowable but unproveable.
    If we place God beyond human endeavour but only contactable by faith then we have ended the debate.
    So believers and unbelievers can shake hands there are no grounds for argument, and each can return to their own worlds. Together they can get on with the task of imoroving this world.


  2. 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. (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html)

    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. 🙂


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 )

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