Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

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, 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 that which 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)

 Problem of Evil

Imagine a deep calm sea, no perturbation anywhere. Now imagine that this sea is disturbed. So now there will be crests as well as troughs.

Now the question is: can there be any crest without any trough?

That means there cannot be any good without any evil;

There cannot be any love without any hate;

There cannot be any compassion without any cruelty;

There cannot be any joy without any sorrow;

There cannot be any beauty without any ugliness;

There cannot be any justice without any injustice;

There cannot be any greatness without any meanness;

There cannot be any life without any death;

There cannot be any virtue without any vice;

There cannot be any morality without any immorality;

There cannot be any theist without any atheist;

Etc.

Deep calm sea without any perturbation is the state before creation. Creation will bring everything along with its own opposite.

How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice

In an earlier article1 I have shown how an atheist tries to suppress his opponent’s voice. Recently I have come across another instance of this.

In one YouTube video comment section one person has written that theists are hilarious because they demand evidence for a multiverse, although they cannot provide any evidence for their God. He has also written that at least multiverse has intensely strong mathematical support behind it.

In reply I have to write to him that if multiverse has mathematical support behind it, then God also has mathematical support behind him, because two equations of SR have already shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. I also write to him that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth, because they consider multiverse as highly probable based on the mathematics of inflation theory, but these same scientists totally ignore God as probable, although there is mathematical support behind God also.

Here comes another person saying that I am kidding and that there is no math that even hints at the existence of my particular God and that a fair amount of shoehorning is going on there.

As he has commented that there is no math that hints at the existence of my particular God, so I have to explain to him in detail that the two equations of SR show how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how a state of spacelessness and timelessness can obtain, so from this it can be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable there is a God.

But this fails to convince him and he sticks to his opinion that I am shoehorning God into science. He also says that if I claim the probable existence of my God in this way, then in a similar way one can also claim the probable existence of other gods like the Greek Primordial Entity Chaos or the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or the Egyptian god Atum, any of which could be this Universe’s creator instead of my particular God.

So I have to write to him that in the whole history of mankind only one God has been described as spaceless and timeless and that this God is the traditional God of almost all the religions all over the world. I also mention that even mystics have described their God as spaceless and timeless. I also write to him that if one wants to put all the other mythical gods in the same bracket with this traditional God, then one will definitely be mistaken. I also request him to mention one single god other than the traditional God of the religions who has been described as spaceless and timeless.

But he does not comply. Rather he asks me to point to the text in my Bible that contains the terms ‘timeless’ and ‘spaceless’. 

Below are the two replies of mine that have been deleted:

Reply one: Perhaps you are not much educated. That is why you think that every person who believes in God is a Christian and that the Bible is his/her religious text. I am a Hindu, but I do not depend on any religious text for my belief.

Here is a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig who is well known as a Christian apologist and a good debater:

“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

Ref:

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

In the above quote it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless. 

Reply 2: You can also read the book ‘Mysticism and Philosophy’ by W. T. Stace, Chapter 2, Section 11: Conclusions, pages 131-132, by google search.

Ref: WT Stace: Mysticism and Philosophy-wudhi.com 

As the above two replies of mine have been deleted, so the impression one will get after going through the whole dialogue is that I have failed to establish my point because I could not produce the required text from the Bible which will further imply that the atheist has the last laugh here.

The truth is that atheists cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that one scientific theory (SR) has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless and that at the same time religions have also described their God as spaceless and timeless. So either they try to show that SR is not a valid scientific theory2, or they try to show that mystics’ timelessness and scientists’ timelessness are not the same3, or when they cannot do anything of these, they directly suppress their opponent’s voice.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/not-only-the-believers-but-the-atheists-as-well-can-be-close-minded/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/is-not-sr-a-valid-scientific-theory/
  3. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/can-there-be-two-types-of-timelessness-one-mystical-another-scientific/

God reveals himself to man in his own interest

A God who knows how to create a universe will also know how to keep a proof of his existence in the created world. And he will also know how to make his presence known to human individuals.

Now let us suppose that this God has created the universe but that he has failed to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. Neither has he ever revealed his presence to anybody. In such a case no one will ever know that there is such a God and man will believe in as many false gods and goddesses as possible as they have done in the early ages of human history.

Now let us suppose that God has created the universe but that while creating it he has totally forgotten to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. However God has regularly revealed himself to many human beings in all the ages of human history. These human individuals through their personal experience will come to know that there is such a God with such and such attributes and they will also know that all the other gods and goddesses that man has imagined so far are all false gods and goddesses only. In this way human society will slowly move from polytheism to monotheism.

But this situation is not an ideal situation at all, because this will ultimately lead to authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism. The ideal situation is the one where there will be both; there will be the personal experience of human individuals and at the same time there will be one or more proof/s of God’s existence in the created world.

From above I hope it becomes clear that if there is a God at all, then why that God will have to reveal himself to human beings from time to time, as otherwise they will never come to know that there is such a God and as in such a situation they will believe in false gods and goddesses only. At the same time if God does not want to breed authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism, then he will also have to keep a proof of his existence in the created world.

I think I have been able to make my point clear that if there is a God at all, then why it is possible for human beings to personally know there is a God, because in his own interest God will have to reveal himself to man from time to time.

I personally know there is a God. That is why I also know that scientists will never be able to explain everything of nature by natural means.

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

I think the biggest blunder science has committed is this: it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Why? This is because when theists bring their God in the picture at all, they bring him in as the creator of the universe, not as a mere observer. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so God as the supposed creator of the universe is the creator of space, time, matter and energy. That means before creation by God there cannot be any space, time, matter and energy. That will further mean the creator God can never be in any space and time and neither can the creator God contain any matter or energy. That is why creator of the universe will always necessarily have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial; it can never be otherwise. So once scientists have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they will no longer be able to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile and all their arguments against this creator God will fall on deaf ears only.

Is the Universe Immaterial?

We already know that the total energy of the universe is zero. We also know that matter and energy are equivalent. From these can we conclude that the total matter of the universe is also zero? Scientist Vector J Stenger thought so. Here is a quote:

‘E=mc2 says matter and energy are the same entity. Since E=0, the total matter of the universe is zero. Zero does not have to come from anything.

‘Now, if by matter you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.’

– Vic Stenger, having been asked for a simple explanation to the question, “where did all the matter come from?” to a letter to Cliff Walker (September 11, 2001).1

But not everyone thinks so; there are other voices also. As per them it cannot be said that the total matter of the universe is zero simply because its total energy is zero. Actually matter in the universe counts for positive energy and gravity counts for negative energy. So when we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we arrive at a total energy of zero for the universe. But matter in itself has a non-zero value in the universe.

So I think the whole issue needs re-examination.

I think I have already made the point clear that the beginning of the universe will always mean that it will begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy.2 Therefore the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should also always have to be zero, because nothing in the universe can come from outside. So, if the universe has a beginning, then its total matter will obviously be zero. This is as per logic.

Now we can also give scientific reason as to why the total matter of the universe will have to be zero.

How is the zero total energy of the universe arrived at? Here matter is treated as positive energy and gravity is treated as negative energy. When we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we get zero total energy for the universe.

But energy cannot be directly deducted from matter. Neither can matter be directly deducted from energy. We will have to bring both of them into the same category before making any such addition or subtraction. We will have to convert either matter into energy or energy into matter. In the above case matter has been converted into energy and this energy is treated as positive energy. From this positive energy negative energy of gravity is subtracted.

Now instead of converting matter into energy, if we convert negative gravitational energy into matter, then we will get negative matter. If we now subtract this negative matter from the positive matter, then we will arrive at the total zero matter of the universe.

So both from the logical point of view as well as from the scientific point of view we can say that the total matter of the universe is zero.

Actually if we say that the total energy of the universe is zero and if matter and energy are also equivalent, then why can we not say that the total matter of the universe is also zero?

As the total matter of the universe is zero, so can we not say that the universe as a whole is immaterial?

Reference:

  1. Positive atheism quotes of Victor J. Stenger, http://www.positiveatheism.org
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/what-does-the-beginning-of-the-universe-actually-mean/

Are Scientists Biased?

Mathematical equations of SR and their implications are very simple to understand; one’s limited intelligence is sufficient for that purpose and no spoon-feeding from the big peers is required in this case. These equations show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. For light this universe is zero millimeters long and light takes zero time for traversing the entire span of the universe, starting from its one end to the other end. If certain portion of space is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light volume of that space will be zero and time will also stop there. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless and timeless state will obtain. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. That is why it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, so from this it can also be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. Here we are not at all saying that mathematics of SR shows that there is a God; rather we are merely saying that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. So nobody should misunderstand us here, either intentionally or unintentionally.

This case is exactly similar to the case of the multiverse. Up till now there is no demonstrable evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe. But there is the inflation theory and its mathematical equations. Here scientists claim that the equations of inflation theory suggest that it is highly probable that there are other universes. If equations of inflation theory can suggest that probably there are other universes, then following the path taken by the scientists we can also equally claim here that equations of SR suggest that probably there is a God.

Scientists consider multiverse as highly probable, because mathematics of inflation theory suggests there may be other universes. But these same scientists refuse to consider God as probable, although in this case also there is the mathematical support of SR behind this God. This shows that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth.

If one supports the claim made by the scientists about the probable existence of the multiverse, then how will he/she oppose our claim about the probable existence of God, without being partial and biased?

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

The reason as to why theists call their God spaceless, timeless and immaterial is the recognition of the fact that if the universe has a beginning, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy. Therefore when we say that the universe has a beginning, we mean to say that its space, time, matter and energy have a beginning. Now the question is: can the universe have a beginning from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy? If the source already contained space, time, matter and energy, then that would mean that space, time, matter and energy were already there. If space, time, matter and energy were already there, then that would further mean that the universe was already there. If the universe was already there, then why do we again say that the universe has a beginning?

The above reasoning shows that if the universe has a beginning at all, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy because in that case it will imply that the universe was already there. Therefore the beginning of the universe will always mean that it can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only. As the universe can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only, so the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should always remain zero, as otherwise one will have to explain as to whence appear the extra space, extra time, extra matter and extra energy that were not already there at the beginning.

So for a universe having a beginning this question must have an answer: how does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?

Only a beginningless, eternal universe will not give us any such trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Only two things can make me convinced that there is no God:

1) If science can show that this universe does not need any God; and

2) If science can show that God of the theistic description cannot exist.

Regarding 1), it should be said that no one on this earth can claim that he/she is omniscient. Therefore no one on this earth can claim that he/she knows with absolutely certainty that there is no God. However scientists can come to know that there is no God if they can show that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god. No doubt this is a very lengthy process indeed, but at the end of this lengthy process one can with some certainty say that the universe does not need any God.

However it has already been shown here1 that the origin of the universe has not been explained properly by the scientists.

The above shows that science has not yet been able to explain everything of nature by natural means. In such a situation how will the scientists convince us that this universe does not need any God?

Regarding 2) it may be asked: which God? This is because there are thousands of religions on earth and each religion has its own concept of God. I have already made this point clear here2.

This God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

So in order to show that this God having the above attributes cannot exist, scientists will have to show that no one or nothing in this universe can be spaceless and timeless. Then it can very easily be argued that this God does not exist, because this God is said to be spaceless and timeless whereas science has already shown that no one or nothing can be spaceless and timeless. But here science has done just the opposite to what it was supposed to do; it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. That means here also science has failed in its endeavour to show that God of the theistic description cannot exist. Here their failure has a much deeper negative impact on us than their failure in the first case, because once they have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless then it becomes next to impossible for them to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile now and all their arguments against God will fall on deaf ears only.

Here I want to add one more point. If we are to bring in a God at all, then we will bring him in not as a mere observer but as the creator of the universe only. So in order to show that this creator God does not exist I think it will be sufficient if scientists can show that the universe needs no creation because it has no beginning, or that even if it has a beginning then that beginning can be easily explained without invoking any kind of god. But I have already shown that science has failed here and so we are not at all convinced that this universe does not need any God.

Scientists have failed to convince us that God does not exist.

 

 

Reference:

1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/a-fundamental-flaw-in-the-thesis-a-universe-from-nothing-part-i/

2.  https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/god-cannot-be-defined-gods-attributes-can-only-be-described/

.