Category Archives: Uncategorized

On Infinite Regress

In the article Existence of anything can ultimately point to God1 I have shown that if anything exists at all, then ultimately there will have to be something that will be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress.

When I have posted this article in one YouTube comment thread, one commentator has asked the following question: ‘Why must we “stop an infinite regress”?’

He has also remarked that as far as he can tell, ALL discussions of origins, purpose and meaning, eventually would lead to infinite regress if one cannot simply accept reality as it appears to be.

He is the same person who in another occasion has written that in Krauss’ hypothesis (A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing) it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that would include the laws of quantum mechanics, but that Krauss cannot explain why such laws should exist when there would be nothing. He has also written that like theists Krauss also runs into the problem that all explanations of origin would ultimately lead to infinite regress. He has written that no matter how the scientists explain the origin of the universe, it would have to be in terms of some pre-existing condition or entity, which leads to the question of why that is the way it is, and whatever explains that would then need to be explained.2

So the reason he has asked the above question is quite apparent. It is due to the sad realization that even the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe has failed to keep itself free from the infinite regress problem that is a real bug in the theistic explanation, because in the later case nobody knows why God would have to be always there or where did God come from. In the scientific explanation also one has to assume that quantum laws were already there but nobody can explain why that would have to be so. So the scientific explanation is no better than the theistic explanation in this respect, because in both the cases there would be an infinite regress. So, if we cannot stop this infinite regress in one occasion, then what is the use of trying to stop it in another occasion?

But this person is definitely wrong here, because the question ‘who created God?’ has already been answered and thus there would be no infinite regress in the theistic explanation. We have been able to show that God is a bunch of several zeroes and everybody knows that zero does not have to come from anything. For this one can read the article ‘Who created God?’ here3.

So it can be said that the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe still suffers from infinite regress problem, whereas the theistic explanation has overcome this problem. In that sense it can be said that the theistic explanation is much better than the scientific explanation.

We would also say that there is no need to feel frustrated over the issue that the infinite regress problem can never be solved, because we have successfully shown that it can be solved.4,5

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/existence-of-anything-can-ultimately-point-to-god/
  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/origin-theory-from-nothing/
  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

4. When this article was published in one online journal, one person after reading this article sent me an e-mail saying that ‘the inevitable presence nowadays in various cosmological models of the “infinite regress” is simply a … silly … thing …’ Below is what he wrote to me:

‘I am writing in connection with your latest paper “On Infinite Regress” …

But of course, the inevitable presence nowadays in various cosmological models of the “infinite regress” is simply a … silly … thing … 😊

Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY … epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities …

And then the issue is: is there today concept of TIME according to which “infinite regression” does NOT appear anymore?

With best wishes.’

So I wrote back to him this: ‘I have gone through your e-mail. My question is: is there any scientific model at present for the origin of the universe in which it has not been assumed that quantum laws were already there? Can you give any citation?’

In his reply e-mail he did not provide any answer to my question and so again I had to write to him asking the same question.

This time he wrote back this: ‘I do not much care about technical details of present day cosmology: they are like … lady’s fashion …  born yesterday, die tomorrow …’

His refusal to answer my question is due to the fact that there is not a single cosmological model at present in which it has not been assumed that quantum laws were already there even when there was nothing. As scientists cannot explain whence those quantum laws appeared when there was nothing, so no cosmological model is actually free from this “infinite regress” problem. But in his first e-mail he wanted to establish that there is no “infinite regress” in various cosmological models. Perhaps after realizing that it is impossible for him to do this, he refused to answer my question.

5. In his article ‘The Other Side of Time (2000) (Ref: https://infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html) scientist Victor J Stenger had written the following:

‘Finally, by showing that the universe did not necessarily have a beginning, we can counter another common theist line of argument used whenever the claim is made that a spontaneous “creation” violates no known physics. The theist will say, “Where did physics come from?” If their imagined God did not have to come from something, because she had no beginning, then neither did physics.’

Now we are in a position to counter his above statement by saying that the question “Where did God come from?” has already been answered, whereas the question “Where did physics come from?” has not yet been answered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Relativity of space and time and their cause

The cause that makes space and time to be relative in our universe must lie outside our universe. Otherwise we will have to admit that there was a time when they were not relative, but absolute.

We know that space and time are relative in our universe. But what is the cause that makes them to be relative? Let us say that A is the cause that makes space and time to be relative. Now regarding A there are two possibilities here:

1) This cause lies within space and time; and

2) it lies outside space and time.

Let us suppose that the cause A lies within space and time.  But this possibility is having one inherent problem in it. We say that A is the cause that makes space and time in our universe to be relative, and we also say that A lies within space and time. So when A made its first appearance within space and time, it also caused space and time to be relative for the first time. From that time onward they have remained relative so far. So from this it can be concluded that before the appearance of A within space and time, space and time were not relative; they were absolute. But will the scientists agree that space and time were not always relative, that they were not relative from the very beginning of their existence? But if they say that space and time were relative, and are still relative, from the very moment they came into existence, then they will also have to admit that the cause that makes space and time to be relative in our universe was already there prior to the moment space and time came into existence, that is, prior to the beginning of our universe.

 

 

Zero-energy Universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God

Scientists have found that the total energy of the universe is zero. From there they have argued that the universe might have originated from nothing due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void, no God being needed for its creation. But I think zero-energy universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God.

If God is the creator, then he would be prior to the existence of space, time and matter. That is the reason we describe God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However one element is missing here: energy. God would be prior to the existence of energy also.

God being prior to space, time, matter and energy would be neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor energy, but something beyond them. That means in God there can be neither any space, nor any time, nor any matter, nor any energy.

If it is now true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then it would be true for God as well. This is because God being the law-giver we should not expect that God would break his own laws very frequently. So God would have to manage the entire creation event with zero energy.

However if the universe is not created, then there is no reason as to why the universe as a whole cannot have total non-zero energy value. As some atheistic scientists claim that quantum laws were always there, so in a similar manner some sort of energy might have been always there. Universe would begin its life with that energy and it would also contain that much of energy as a whole.

So, if the universe is created, then there would be at least one constraint due to which the universe can never have any energy, this constraint being God. In the other case there would be no such constraint and so the universe can freely have total non-zero energy.

Here my questions are two:

1) If quantum laws could have been always there, then why not energy?

2) So, what are the compelling factors due to which even an uncreated universe cannot have total non-zero energy?

Actually we can think of two different situations regarding the beginning of the universe:

Situation 1: There would be no energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe is created by God. Here the universe would start from zero energy and therefore it makes sense that the total energy of the universe would always remain zero, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Situation 2: There would be energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe originated from a singularity. Here the universe would start from non-zero energy (energy contained in singularity) and therefore it does not make any sense that the total energy of the universe would remain zero in this case also.

 

 

 

Why there can be only One God

Recently one question was put to me by an atheist regarding the number of god or gods responsible for creating the universe: ‘You can’t even cite any rational criteria for determining how many gods are responsible. You use the word ‘God’ as if there is only one. What is your evidence that there is only one god?’

So what is my evidence that there is only one God?

I have already shown elsewhere1,2 that if there is a creator of the universe, then that creator cannot be within any space and time, because logic dictates that a creator will always precede his/her creation. Before creation there was no space and time and therefore the creator god was not within any space and time. That means before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than the creator god, because before creation there was no space and time beyond the creator god within which someone or something might exist. Or, we can also say that before creation there was no one else, nothing else beyond the creator god.

Now instead of calling the creator of the universe as the creator god, we can also call him/her the cause of the universe. Or, in brief, we will call it The Cause. Thus The Cause would be such that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else other than The Cause.

Now let us suppose that there were two gods instead of one: god-A and god-B. Now can we say about god-A that before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than god-A? Can we say about god-B that before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than god-B? No, we cannot say so, because before creation there was already god-B beyond god-A and god-A beyond god-B.

But we have already seen above that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else beyond The Cause, because before creation there would be no space and time. So we see that neither god-A nor god-B fulfils the condition for being The Cause, because The Cause would have to be such that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else other than The Cause. So, either god-A is prior to god-B and is the cause of both god-B and the universe, or god-B is prior to god-A and is the cause of both god-A and the universe. But both of them combined cannot be the cause of the universe.

This clearly shows that there can be only one god, not many.

The whole matter can be analyzed from another angle. The situation before creation would have to be such that there would be no space and time before creation. But if there are two gods, then can we say that before creation there was no space and time? No, we cannot say so, because if there are two gods, then both of them would be within some space and time.

Here we cannot claim that god-A is not within any space and time, This is because if god-A is not really within any space and time, then beyond god–A there would be no space and time within which someone or something might exist and therefore there would be no one else, nothing else beyond god–A. But we already know that there was god-B beyond god-A. That means it cannot be said about god-A that it is not within any space and time.

By the same logic it can be shown that god-B is also within some space and time.

So, if there are more than one gods, then space and time would already be there. That will further mean that creation has already taken place. So, again we will have to say that either god-A is prior to god-B and is the cause of both god-B and the universe, or that god-B is prior to god-A and is the cause of both god-A and the universe. But both of them combined cannot be the cause of the universe.

However it must be mentioned here that it is very much possible that both of them together (an assembly of gods A and B)  are not within any space-time. But when we consider them individually and separately, both god-A and god-B would be within some space-time.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/a-purely-logical-and-cold-blooded-concept-of-god/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/which-god/

 

 

 

Atheist Using Double Standard For Ascertaining Truth

Recently I have some interactions with an atheist.

Atheist

There is a magic leprechaun who created the universe. I have evidence for it, because I have a book which says so. The leprechaun says that you have to marry me, otherwise you will be tortured for eternity. So, for your own good, come over here and marry me. I don’t want you to be tortured forever! Really! You just have to have faith, then you know I’m telling the truth. So… See you soon?

Me

‘There is a magic leprechaun who created the universe.’

Is your magic leprechaun spaceless, timeless and immaterial? If not, then your magic leprechaun cannot be the creator of the universe for the following reason:

Logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so a creator of the universe will naturally have to be prior to space, time, matter and energy. Thus the creator of the universe cannot be within any space and time and neither can he contain any matter and energy.

So a magic leprechaun who is not spaceless, timeless and immaterial fails to qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of the creator of the universe.

Atheist

He comes from another universe and created this universe. It is all in the book. And it makes more sense than the Biblical God. If something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, it doesn’t exist. There is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. Ergo: Something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.

Me

‘If something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, it doesn’t exist. There is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. Ergo: Something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.’

The above quote shows that you have no idea about what it actually means to be spaceless and timeless. For you spaceless and timeless means to be in no space for no time and therefore something that is spaceless and timeless does not exist at all. But actually it does not mean that. Here is an example.

People generally misunderstand what it means to be outside space-time. Whatever exists within the universe exists within space-time. But what about the universe itself? Does it exist within some higher space-time? Is there any space-time beyond the universe? If there is no space-time beyond the universe, then universe as a whole does not exist within any space-time. In that case shall we say that the universe does not exist?

We know that the universe is expanding. Now if you ask any cosmologist this question that what it is expanding into, they will always reply that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. Their answer is fully consistent with the big bang theory. Big bang theory says that space-time began along with the big bang only. That means big bang did not occur within any pre-existing space-time, because there was no space-time before the big bang. Therefore neither is the universe expanding within any pre-existing space-time.

So, here cosmologists are also saying the same thing that the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. Due to this reason shall we say that the universe does not exist?

Atheist

The universe does exist, because the universe IS space time and matter. As far as we know, there is nothing outside of our universe. So, it is indeed fully consistent with the Big bang theory. Outside the universe, there is no space and time, so outside our universe, there is no space or time where anything can exist, so, therefore, probably nothing exists without our universe.

Me

Everybody knows that universe is space, time and matter. But here the question is: within which space-time does the universe as a whole exist if there is no space-time outside the universe?

So your concept that spaceless and timeless means existing in no space for no time applies for the universe as well, because the universe as a whole is not within any space-time.

In whichever way you try to suppress this truth, you will fail.

Atheist

Ok then. So there is a council of gods existing without time, space and matter, spending no time doing nothing nowhere.

Anyway, they never showed any interest in me or my well being, so, I guess the god(s) have better things to do with their no time, and I will try to spend my time (because I have to deal with time because I am in the universe) as good as possible.

Oh, and in case you meet one or more gods, can you please tell them I’d really like to meet them? I am very curious how it is to live whitout space and time.

Me

Your last comment shows that either you are a dogmatic person, or your intelligence level is low, very low. So either you refuse to understand (due to your dogmatism), or you fail to understand (due to your low level of intelligence) that whatever may be the ultimate reality that ultimate reality can never be within any space and time.

Here the interaction ends.

Here the atheist is clearly using double standard for ascertaining truth; he is using one standard for God and another standard for the universe. For him existence means existing within some space-time. So for him God does not exist because God is not within any space and time. But for him the universe exists, although as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space-time, because it is not expanding into anything. So as per his own standard he should also say that the universe does not exist. But he does not say so.

So his using double standard for ascertaining truth is quite apparent.

A Purely Logical and Cold-blooded Concept of God

In one YouTube comment thread a person has asked this question: ‘What is God?’

So I have decided to write this post, although I know that some of my arguments here will only be a repetition from my earlier posts.

We all know that there is the universe. No one can have any doubt about it.

Now if we are to invoke a God at all, then we will always invoke that God who is the supposed creator of this universe. We will not invoke a lesser God than that. For example, we will not invoke a god who can send us rain, thunder and storm only, but cannot do anything else.

Simple logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation.

As the universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so simple logic dictates that the creator of the universe will be prior to space, time, matter and energy.

Thus a creator God being prior to space, time and matter will necessarily be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

A creator God who is spaceless and timeless will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite, because all these attributes are nothing but the default attributes of someone or something that is spaceless and timeless.

So the full description of a creator God will be this: God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

It is needless to say here that this creator God should also have sufficient power and knowledge necessary for creating a universe. But that does not mean that he must have to be all-powerful and all-knowing.

So I am very clearly saying here that a creator God needs not have to be all-powerful and all-knowing.

Here whatever has been said about the creator God has logically followed from the statement that God is the creator of the universe. Nothing extra has been assumed or added by us.

Why do I call it a cold-blooded concept of God? This is because no human emotion has been allowed here to play any single part in forming this concept of God.

This can also be called a naked version of God, because the human jacket that he is forced to wear by the believers has been removed from his entire body.

Some atheists claim that man has created God in man’s own image. Even one eminent atheist like Daniel Dennett has claimed the same thing. Here I will show that all these atheists are mistaken in thinking so.

We know that God has not only been described as all-loving, all-good, merciful, just, compassionate etc., but he has also been described as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. If we now claim that man has created God in man’s own image, then we will have to conclude that attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, immortality etc. are all human attributes.

But we know very well that these attributes are not human attributes at all.

So it is only a half-truth that man has created God in man’s own image.

 

 

Which God?

In one YouTube comment thread an atheist has asked this question: ‘Which god? I like Zeus… Can I study his word as the one and only truth? Odds are he’s as right as Yahweh is or Allah or Odin or Shiva or Osiris or… You get the point’

So the most crucial question is: which god? Because there are thousands of gods which man has imagined so far. Out of so many gods, which one is the true god?

Actually there can be only one true God, a God who has created the universe. The answer is as simple as that.

But how do we come to know that out of these thousands of gods which particular god has actually created the universe?

There is an easy way out. First determine what will be the attributes of a creator god. Then find out which god out of these thousands of gods has these particular attributes of a creator god. Then that god will be the true god.

So our next question will be: what are the attributes of this creator God?

Anybody can find out what will be the attributes of this creator God if he/she is intelligent enough and if he/she can use his/her brain and logic properly.

Here no spoon-feeding from the big peers is required at all. One’s own intelligence is sufficient for this purpose.

Universe has been created by God.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy.

So universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy has been created by God.

That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy.

That will again mean that before creation God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy.

That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

So a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.

Now let us ask ourselves this question: have Zeus, Ganesha, Poseidon, Santa, Easter Bunny, Odin, Thor, Shiva, Appollo, Osiris or any other mythical gods that we can think of, ever been described as spaceless, timeless and immaterial?

If not, then none of these mythical gods can qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of this creator God, because logic dictates that a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

But God of almost all the major religions all over the world has been repeatedly described as spaceless and timeless.

Actually spacelessness and timelessness are the two most common major attributes of God of the religions throughout the world. Mystics who claim that they have direct encounter with God have also described their God as spaceless and timeless.

But where is the evidence that there is such a creator God?

Scientists have also faithfully served the purpose of this creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless (SR), whereas they could also have shown just the opposite, that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.

Yes, they could also have shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless if it was the job of the scientists to manufacture truth.

In that case they could have very easily falsified science and shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.

In that case all our arguments for a creator God would have stopped then and there.

But it is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. So they had to show what they were supposed to show: THE TRUTH AS IT IS.

So they had to show how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

Thus they have failed to suppress the truth that it is really possible to be spaceless and timeless.

It is most important for us believers that science has failed to suppress the truth that it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

[Here, am I not insulting the whole scientific community by suggesting that they can even think of suppressing any scientific truth?

No, hereby I am merely uttering one bitter truth about some modern day scientists who so vehemently deny the existence of God that practically nothing is impossible for them, not even suppressing some scientific truth that may eventually point to a creator God.]

By showing how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, science has actually given its validation to our concept of a spaceless and timeless God. It has indirectly said here that from the scientific point of view it is not impossible for someone to be spaceless and timeless.

Logic dictates that a creator God will always be spaceless and timeless and science has also given its full support to this logical conclusion by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Based on their personal experience mystics have also repeatedly said that God is spaceless and timeless.

Thus logic, science and mystics’ personal experience – all the three converge here and point to a single entity: creator God.

Based on this fact alone it can safely be said that mathematics of SR points to a creator God whose two major attributes are his spacelessness and timelessness.

If this creator God does not exist at all, then why was it necessary for science to show as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless? Why has it not shown just the opposite of what it has actually shown? That no one/nothing can be spaceless and timeless? Who, or what, compelled it to show what it has actually shown here? Was it the TRUTH itself?

When I have pointed out to some atheists that God is called spaceless and timeless and that in SR science has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they have desperately tried to falsify science. One can go through the below links to see it oneself:

https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/not-only-the-believers-but-the-atheists-as-well-can-be-close-minded/

https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/is-not-sr-a-valid-scientific-theory/

https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/how-atheists-suppress-their-opponents-voice/

If these atheists really think that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods and so there is no reason to believe in anybody’s god, then why this urge to falsify science?

 

God of the Scientists

In olden-golden days the saying was: When there was nothing, there was God. When there will be nothing again, there will still be God.

But then came the scientists and changed everything. The above saying also changed to this: When there was nothing, there were quantum laws. When there will be nothing again, there will still be quantum laws.

These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless, changeless, eternal, all-pervading, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and immaterial. Only that these laws lack consciousness. In every other respect they are just like God.

These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because when there was no space, no time and no matter, there were still these quantum laws (Vilenkin’s model).

These quantum laws are unborn and uncreated, because no one has given birth to them nor anyone has created them.

These quantum laws are all-pervading, because these laws act equally everywhere.

These quantum laws are scientists’ God.

Amen.                       

Why Universe’s Origin from Nothing without Divine Intervention is Circular Reasoning

Theists claim that there is a God and that this God is everywhere. That means this theistic God is present at each and every point of this universe. The three major attributes of Biblical God are his omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Now what does the word omnipresence mean? Below are some definitions of the word omnipresence.

‘Omnipresence: This theological term means “always present.” Since God is infinite, His being knows no boundaries. So, clearly He is everywhere. This truth is taught throughout the Bible as the phrase “I am with you always” is repeated 22 times in both the Old and New Testaments. These were even Jesus’ words of assurance just after giving the challenge to His disciples to take His message to the entire world. This is certainly a comforting truth for all who follow Jesus.’1

‘Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once.’2

In Wikipedia the following has been written about God’s omnipresence: ‘The omnipresence of God refers to him being present everywhere…[O}mnipresence…denotes that God “fills every part of space with His entire Being,”’3

Now scientists have created a vacuum within the present universe and they are claiming that this vacuum is a real vacuum. But here theists will say that the vacuum is not a real vacuum at all, because there will be the presence of this omnipresent God within the vacuum itself.

Now are the scientists supporting the claim made by the theists, or are they opposing it? Here they are opposing the claim. That means they are denying the existence of God. And there is justified reason for them to deny the existence of God, because up till now there is no evidence that there is any God. 

So here theists are claiming that the void created by the scientists is not a real void because God is everywhere, whereas scientists are claiming just the opposite that it is a real void because God does not exist at all.

It is well and good if scientists claim that God does not exist and that therefore the void created by them is a real void. Nobody has to say anything against it. But if they utilize this void for further showing that no God is needed for creating the universe, then there will be real reason for raising objection against that step. Because here the premise from which they are starting already contains the conclusion which they want to reach. Their starting premise is this: there is no God and that is why the void created by them is a real void. But even a fool will understand that if there is no God, then this non-existent God can in no way be the creator of the universe. Therefore their starting premise already contains within it the conclusion they want to reach that no God is needed for creating the universe.

As a non-existent God can in no way be the creator of the universe, so all the efforts made by the scientists to further show that no God was needed for creating the universe were actually futile. This is because when they have claimed that the void is a real void, they have also made another claim along with this, either knowingly or unknowingly, that no God has actually created this universe, because there was no such God to create it.

Actually they could have made this claim here: ‘we have successfully shown that if it is the case that there is no God, then the universe can originate from nothing due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void.’

This claim is perfectly all right, because it is a conditional claim.

But instead they have made this claim: ‘we have successfully shown that no God is actually needed for creating the universe, because it can originate from nothing without any divine intervention due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void.’

Actually they have shown no such thing here. They are claiming they have shown God is not needed for creating the universe. But actually they have already started from the premise that God is not needed for creating the universe. So here they are illegitimately trying to grab the credit for something which has already been tacitly assumed in their starting premise.

So, are these scientists befooling us? Or, are they befooling themselves?

Reference:

  1. Attributes of God, http://www.allaboutgod.com/attributes-of-god-2.htm
  2. http://study.com/academy/lesson/omnipotent-omniscient-and-omnipresent-god-definition-lesson-quiz.html
  3. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity

Origin Theory from Nothing

Even if it is ultimately established that there is no God, yet that fact alone will not automatically make the current theory for the origin of the universe from nothing a better theory than before.

At least three points can be raised against this theory.

First of all it says that as the total energy of the present universe has been found to be zero, so the entire universe can come from nothing, no god being needed. But I have already shown that this total energy will also be zero if the universe has originated from something, or even if it has been created by some supernatural agent.1 That means zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing. So on the basis of which factor have they concluded that the universe has originated from nothing?

Secondly it claims that everything has originated from nothing. Thus it solves one problem. But at the same time it creates some new problems, because now it will have to provide an explanation as to how the totality of everything always remains nothing, that is, zero, which explanation it fails to provide. It does not explain how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.2

Thirdly it assumes that quantum laws were already there, but it does not explain whence originated those quantum laws, or in which container were those laws when there was no space-time. One commentator in one YouTube presentation has written very nicely about this problem.3 So I think everyone should read what he has written on this. He has written that in Krauss’ hypothesis it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that will include the laws of quantum mechanics, but that Krauss cannot explain why such laws should exist when there would be nothing. He has also written that like theists Krauss also runs into the problem that all explanations of origin will ultimately lead to infinite regress. He has written that no matter how the scientists explain the origin of the universe, it would have to be in terms of some pre-existing condition or entity, which leads to the question of why that is the way it is, and whatever explains that would then need to be explained.

Actually this origin theory shows that modern day science has gone totally bankrupt. That is why it cannot produce anything better than this half-baked theory that cannot solve one single problem without at the same time creating another problem that it cannot solve. It also shows one more thing. It shows that modern day intelligentsia has sunk so low that it can remain satisfied with such a half-baked theory.

A theory that cannot solve one problem without creating another problem that it cannot solve cannot be called a good theory at all. Even as a hypothesis it is a very bad hypothesis indeed.

So I think there is ample reason to doubt as to whether this is the correct theory at all for the origin of the universe. There must be some other good theory that will not only be able to explain the origin of the universe, but it will also be able to answer all the other questions that the theory might generate. It might also be the case that we will ultimately find that the universe has not originated from nothing at all, but from some other thing.

Newton’s theory of gravity was ultimately replaced by Einstein’s theory of gravity because Newton’s theory could not correctly explain the precession of the orbital path of mercury. Calculations made by Newton’s laws gave the magnitude of precession shorter by about 43 seconds of arc per century from the observed magnitude. Einstein’s theory of gravity was able to account for this discrepancy, by attributing it to the curvature of space around the sun.4

In a similar way it is expected that the current theory for the origin of the universe will be replaced by some other theory that will be able to answer what the current theory cannot answer e.g. the question as to how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.com/2015/12/21/lawrence-krauss-faulty-logic/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/a-fundamental-flaw-in-the-thesis-a-universe-from-nothing-part-i/
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA5SrJ74Oj4&t=40s
  4. http://www.science20.com/matter/blog/precession_mercury%E2%80%99s_orbit)