Irony of Modern Science

About the God who was never there it has been said that he/she/it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the God who was never there it has also has been said that he/she/it is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

About the God who was never there we say that he/she/it is spaceless. Here science was having two options: 1) it could have shown that nothing can be spaceless; 2) or, it could have shown how it is possible to be spaceless. Nobody has forced the scientists to choose the second option, but despite that they have shown on their own initiative how it is possible to be spaceless.

About the God who was never there we also say that he/she/it is timeless. Here also science was having two options and here also not being forced by anybody they have shown on their own initiative how it is possible to be timeless.

Now what would have happened if science had shown that nothing in this universe could be spaceless and timeless? In that case it would have been much more easier to show that God does not exist simply because this God is spaceless and timeless and because science has already shown that nothing can be spaceless and timeless.

As we can now show with the help of science how God can be spaceless and timeless, so we can also very easily show how this God is changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. This is because all these attributes are the default attributes of someone or something that is spaceless and timeless.

So, although this God was never there and although modern science also equally denies the existence of God, yet with the help of one of the modern scientific theories (SR) we can fully, completely, excellently explain this God. Is it not really funny?

All this has been possible simply because this God was never there.

Spaceless and Timeless God and Quantum Entanglement

We say God is all-pervading, we say God is everywhere. God is everywhere means God is present at each and every point of the universe. Although God is present everywhere, yet it is not the case that God’s presence is more at some points of space and less at some other points of space. Rather we will say that God is equally present everywhere. We will say that God is wholly present, fully present, entirely present at each and every point of the universe. As the same God is present at each and every point of the universe, so the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space should be zero, because the same God is present everywhere. One cannot be distant from one’s own self. That the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space is really zero has already been confirmed by science through the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

But the above is only one type of entanglement e.g. spatial entanglement. Mystics have repeatedly written about this spatial entanglement through their doctrine of interconnectedness of everything. Here is one quote from Bertrand Russell:

“The doctrine of interpenetration, according to which different things are not really separate, but are so merely conceived by the analytic intellect, is to be found in every mystic, Eastern or Western, from Permenides to Mr. Bradley.”1

Here is another quote from a poem by Francis Thompson, a British poet:

“All things by immortal power,

Near and far

Hiddenly

To each other linked are,

That thou canst not stir a flower

Without troubling of a star.”2

Here both Russell and Thompson are talking about the phenomenon of spatial entanglement only. When you stir a flower here on earth, a distant star in the sky is also troubled, because all things by immortal power – here the flower on the earth and there the star in the sky – are hiddenly linked to each other. The separateness between the two is apparent only, not real.

But if God is really there, then there should be another type of entanglement: the temporal entanglement. As in case of spatial entanglement there is no real space gap between any two points in space, so in case of temporal entanglement there should not be any real time gap between any two moments in time. Mystic Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) has written elaborately about this entanglement while discussing God and time. First I will present some quotes from his writings:

Quote 1: “All that God created six thousand years ago and even earlier, when He created the world, He creates all of them right now.”3

Quote 2: “There exists only the present instant… a Now which always and without end is itself new. There is no yesterday nor any tomorrow, but only Now, as it was a thousand years ago and as it will be a thousand years hence.”4

Quote 3: “The now wherein God made the world is as near this time as the now I am speaking in this moment, and the last day is as near this now as was yesterday”5

Quote 4 “All that happened a thousand years ago, the day of a thousand years ago, is no more remote in eternity than the moment in which I stand right now; again, the day which will come a thousand years from now, or in as many years as you can count, is no more distant in eternity than this very moment in which I stand presently.”6

From the above quotes it appears that as per Eckhart in God there is neither any yesterday nor any tomorrow, neither any past nor any future, but only the present instant.

In the first quote above Eckhart is saying that all that God created six thousand years ago and even earlier, when He created the world, He creates all of them right now. Here we can see that first he used the past tense and then changed to the present tense. What he meant to say by this is that what is a past moment for us is not really a past moment for God. For us the moment God created the world was six thousand years ago, but for God this moment of creation is actually the present moment. So for us there is a time gap of six thousand years between the moment of creation and the present moment, but for God there is no such time gap between these two moments. These two moments are the same moment for God.  Here we will have to remember that Eckhart was from the 13th century and so naturally it was not possible for him to know anything about the big bang. However if he were alive today, he would have said that for God the big bang did not occur 13.8 billion years ago, rather it occurs right now. That means this time gap of 13.8 billion years is real for us human beings only, but it is not at all real for God.

Not only that, in the fourth quote above he is also saying that “…the day which will come a thousand years from now, or in as many years as you can count, is no more distant in eternity than this very moment in which I stand presently.” That means for God there will be no time gap between this present moment and any moment that will come in future.

What all this means is that for God there is only one single present moment and that single present moment contains within itself all the past moments as well as all the future moments. Whatever happens in the universe happens in that present moment only. For God the moment the universe has begun and the moment it will come to an end is actually the same moment, whereas for us human beings there will be a time gap of several billion years between these two moments.

It is not that Eckhart was the only person who had said such things about God. Before him St. Augustine had also said the same thing. Here is a relevant quote from Bertrand Russell:

“God is eternal, in the sense of being timeless; in God there is no before and after, but only an eternal present. God’s eternity is exempt from the relation of time; all time is present to Him at once.”7

Here also we see that St. Augustine is saying the same thing as Eckhart that in God there is no before and no after, but only an eternal present.

[Here I can also personally testify that what both St. Augustine and Meister Eckhart have written about God’s timelessness are true, because I personally have an experience of what God’s timelessness actually is. In the month of April 2009, on the last Sunday of that month, at about 8 pm, I had this experience of God’s timeless world. The first thought that came to my mind after having this experience was this: God has got no future. Atheists will readily agree, because as per them God does not exist and therefore a non-existent God cannot naturally have any future. But they will be mistaken in thinking that, because I will again add: God has got no past. Actually God has got neither any past nor any future. God’s own world is really a very peculiar world, where there is neither any past moment nor any future moment. Those who think that after their death they will definitely go to heaven and live there eternally should think twice, because is it really possible for us human beings to live in a world where there is no future moment? We have been made in such a way that we have been accustomed to live in a world where there is both the past as well as the future. So how can it be possible for us to live in a world where there is no past, no future? So theologians should think seriously about it before proclaiming that as humans we have a heavenly after-life.]

So, if God is really there, then it must also be established that there is no real time gap between any two moments in time as it has already been established that there is no real space gap between any two points of space. This has also been established through the phenomenon of temporal entanglement. For this one can read the article “Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time” by George Musser in the Quanta magazine here.8

One more point. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment was successful only because whatever happens in the universe happens in one single moment only, this single moment being God’s eternal present moment.

Reference:

  1. Book: Skeptical Essays, 1928 Edition, Chapter: Philosophy in twentieth century, Page 69.
  2. Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913) by Francis Thompson (1859-1907)..
  3. http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart-quotes.asp?pg=3
  4. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/meistereck149156.html
  5. http://www.azquotes.com/quote/588337
  6. Book: Wandering Joy: Meister Eckhart’s Mystical Philosophy, By Reiner Schürmann, Page 58.
  1. Book: History of Western Philosophy, Chapter: Saint Augustine’s Philosophy and Theosophy, Page 152, Simon and Schuster, New York.
  2. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/

Is there any need for the Supernatural?

The difference between the atheists and the scientists is this: atheists can afford to be close-minded, but scientists cannot; their job or profession forbids them to be so. As scientists they have got some responsibility that the atheists do not have. As scientists they are supposed to provide explanation for all the events, phenomena or effects in nature and therefore they have to keep their mind open to the possibility that they may not always be able to explain everything purely naturally.

Scientist Victor J Stenger was an atheist, but like most of the atheists he was not close-minded. He did not completely rule out the possibility that there might be a God. In the year 2007 he published a book ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not exist’. In the introduction of that book he wrote the following:

“Indeed, the “God of the gaps” has long been a common argument for God. Science does not explain everything, so there is always room for other explanations and the believer is easily convinced that the explanation is God. However, the God of the gaps argument by itself fails, at least as a scientific argument, unless the phenomenon in question is not only currently scientifically inexplicable but can be shown to forever defy natural description. God can only show up by proving to be necessary, with science equally proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account of the phenomenon based on natural or material processes alone.” (pp 13-14)1

So as per Stenger if there is one single phenomenon of nature for which science is proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account based on natural or material processes alone and which can be shown to forever defy natural description, then there, and there only, God can show up by proving to be necessary as an explanation.

Not only that. In the year 2009 British Scientist Edgar Andrews published a book ‘Who Made God’ in which he severely criticised the book “God: the Failed hypothesis” by Stenger (Chapter 5). In reply Stenger wrote the following:

“Anyone who has read any of my books knows I would never say that models detect anything. I simply say that God is not needed as part of any existing models but make clear that, if the evidence should require it, science should be required to include supernatural causes. If anything, Andrews should appreciate that, unlike most scientists, I allow for the possibility that we may not always be able to explain everything purely naturally. Currently we can, but I cannot predict the future.”2 (emphasis added)

Here also we can see that he is not completely ruling out the possibility for the existence of the supernatural. This possibility can only be completely ruled out if, and only if, science can provide a natural explanation for each and every phenomenon of nature without any single exception.

There is one more scientist who like Victor J Stenger keeps his mind open to the possibility that as scientists one day they may also have the need of God as an explanation for some phenomenon of nature. Sean M Carroll is a theoretical physicist; to the outer world he is known to be an atheist. But despite that in November 1, 2010 he wrote an article (Is Dark Matter Supernatural?) that clearly shows his open-mindedness regarding this. Here is a relevant quote from that article:

“There is a perfectly good question of whether science could ever conclude that the best explanation was one that involved fundamentally lawless behavior. The data in favor of such a conclusion would have to be extremely compelling… but I don’t see why it couldn’t happen. Science is very pragmatic, as the origin of quantum mechanics vividly demonstrates. Over the course of a couple decades, physicists (as a community) were willing to give up on extremely cherished ideas of the clockwork predictability inherent in the Newtonian universe, and agree on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. That’s what fit the data. Similarly, if the best explanation scientists could come up with for some set of observations necessarily involved a lawless supernatural component, that’s what they would do. There would inevitably be some latter-day curmudgeonly Einstein figure who refused to believe that God ignored the rules of his own game of dice, but the debate would hinge on what provided the best explanation, not a priori claims about what is and is not science.”3 (emphasis added)

From above we can see that the question as to whether there is any supernatural or not is purely a practical one. If scientists fail to provide a suitable explanation for certain phenomenon of nature by every natural means possible, then they are ready to go for the supernatural. Atheists do not have to face such crisis in their life, so they can very easily remain close-minded.

Reference:

  1. http://skepdic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bog-neydachnaia-gipoteza.pdf
  2. http://whomadegod.org/2011/06/victor-stenger-replies-to-who-made-god/
  3. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/11/01/is-dark-matter-supernatural/#.V_jlNNR95kg

Does God Exist if God is neither in Space nor in Time?

About God it is usually said that he/she/it is spaceless and timeless, that he/she/it is beyond space and time, that he/she/it is outside of space and time and that he/she/it is neither in space nor in time. What does all this actually mean? Does it mean that God does not exist? Actually many atheists think so. Some of them have expressed their doubt in this way:

1) Nothing can exist for zero time in zero space;

2) God is nowhere, because God occupies no space. God is never, because God occupies no time. Thus, God does not exist;

3) If someone says that God exists outside of space and time, then that will mean that God never existed in anywhere;

4) Nothing can exist outside time and space;

5) There is no difference between a God that existed for zero time and a God that never existed. Outside time implies zero time;

6) A God that exists outside time cannot interact with stuff inside time;

7) Where was God 5 minutes before he created time and space?

These are some of the comments I have randomly picked up from various YouTube comment sections. So there is a real confusion here. For God to exist, he/she/it must have to be in some space and time, otherwise we cannot say that God exists. This confusion is to be cleared.

Let us suppose that there is a very big hall and that in that hall a balloon is floating. Inside the balloon there are some tiny balloons floating within the space available inside the balloon. The balloon has one peculiar property, it can automatically expand itself. As the balloon expands, the space available within the hall for its movement reduces gradually. Now let us suppose that the balloon expands so much that it fills up the entire space of the hall. So now it will fail to make any movement, because there is no more space left for it inside the hall for making any such movement. So we can now say that the balloon has become spaceless. As the balloon has become spaceless, so it will become timeless also, because time is nothing but sequence of events. When the balloon was smaller in size and when it was possible for it to make movement within the hall, there was sequence of events for it. Earlier it was at some place and later it was at another place, because it was moving continuously within the hall. So there was a moment that was earlier than the present moment and subsequently there was a moment that was later than the present moment. In this way time was generated for it. But when it occupies the entire space of the hall, there will be no time for it, because for it there will be no more movement and thus there will be no before and no after. In this way the balloon will be spaceless and timeless. But does that mean the balloon does not exist? Does that mean the balloon exists in no space for no time? No, it exists in all space for all time. It exists for all time, because being spaceless it has become timeless also and therefore there can never be any next moment for it and thus it can never cease to be.

Now what about the tiny balloons that were floating inside the bigger balloon? As the bigger balloon occupies the entire space of the hall now, so now they will have entire space of the hall for their movement. So for them there will be sufficient space for making movement and as a consequence there will be time as well for them, although for the bigger balloon there will be neither any space nor any time for making any movement. But for that reason we cannot say that the bigger balloon does not exist.

Now let us suppose that the hall is as big as the universe and that God occupies the entire space of the universe. So God will be spaceless and timeless for the reasons given above, but for these reasons we cannot say that God does not exist. Rather we will have to say that God exists in all space for all time.

To be in space-time means to be in water like a fish. To be in space-time means you will be immersed in space-time; space-time will be above you, beyond you, surrounding you. In that sense God cannot be in any space-time, because there can never be anything outside God.

 

Not only the Believers, but the Atheists as well, can be Close-minded

It is not that only believers are close-minded; there are lots of atheists and non-believers who are close-minded as well. I will give just one example here.

In one YouTube channel presentation someone argued that God does not exist, because God is neither in space nor in time. For him in order to exist someone or something must have to be in space and time. In reply I wrote to him that there is an instance in nature that something can still exist even if it is neither in space nor in time. In SR it has been shown that both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So long SR is not replaced by some other better theory, we will have to accept that its mathematical equations are correct and that therefore whatever conclusions can be drawn from these equations are also correct.

So as per SR a photon originating in a distant star and coming towards earth will be neither in space nor in time during its total transition period, which may be anything, even billions of years, depending on the distance of the star from the earth. But due to this reason that light is neither in space nor in time during the transition we cannot say that light does not exist, because we can see the star. Twice my comment was deleted. So I posted it for the third time and then only it was answered. The reply was that the mathematics of SR is wrong, because it contradicts our observation. As we can see the light, so it must be in some space-time. So I had to write to him that If he had any new theory that could replace SR, then he should present it to the peers and get it accepted. This comment was also deleted.

So I cannot accept that only believers are close-minded; non-believers can also be close-minded.

Why Light is the sure and certain proof for the existence of God

It is usually claimed by the atheists and the atheistic scientists that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But it is not true that there is no evidence. Actually the fact is that when any such evidence is offered, it is usually ignored by the atheistic community in general.

It has been shown in the special theory of relativity that both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light. As per this theory light can travel even an infinite distance in no time, because this infinite distance will be infinitely contracted to zero distance for light, and to cover zero distance zero time will be needed for light. So long SR is not replaced by some other better theory, we will have to accept that its mathematical equations are correct and that therefore whatever conclusions can be drawn from its equations are also correct.

So, light originates within space and time, but as per SR both space and time become non-existent for light. I have shown in three different articles here1, here2 and here3 that whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time, because in that case there will be an infinite regress.

Here I will give one more simple reason as to why this cause cannot lie within space and time.

Let us assume that both the light and the cause due to which space and time become non-existent for light exist within the same space and time. So when the cause makes space and time non-existent for light, the cause will also be equally affected, because here both the cause and light exist within the same space and time. So, when space and time become non-existent for light, they will also become non-existent for the cause itself. Thus both the light and its cause will have the same characteristics; both of them will be spaceless and timeless. So if the cause lies within space and time, then we will find in nature one more entity other than light that will have the same properties as those of light. But actually we find none, light is the sole entity in nature that has these properties. That means this cause does not lie within space and time; it lies outside space and time.

Even if we find in nature one more entity that has the same properties as those of light, that will not solve our problem. This is because we will now have to ask the same question about the cause itself that we were earlier asking about light: being within space and time, how do both space and time become non-existent for it? But this is the old infinite regress problem and I have already dealt with it here1.

Reference:

1)  https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/is-fine-tuning-actually-required-for-proving-the-existence-of-god/

2) https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/how-the-concept-of-the-whole-helps-us-prove-the-existence-of-god/

3) https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/easiest-way-to-prove-that-there-is-a-god/

Existence of Anything can ultimately point to God.

In an earlier article1 I have written that God cannot be defined, but that God’s attributes can only be described. And the complete description of this God is this: God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

Here I will show that the existence of anything will ultimately point to this God.

If something exists at all, then it can be shown that that will imply that something also exists that is spaceless and timeless, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress.

Now let us start from the earth. Earth exists within the solar system. The solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way galaxy exists within the local cluster of galaxies. This cluster again exists within some super-cluster of galaxies. This super-cluster of galaxies exists within the universe. The universe exists within the multiverse that contains billions of other universes. Cosmologists usually stop at this level, they do not want to go beyond the multiverse. But there is no binding that we will have to stop here at the multiverse level at all. So we will say that this multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains billions of other multiverses. Then we will again say that this super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains billions of other super-multiverses. Then we will again say that this super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains billions of other super-duper multiverses. Then we will again say that this supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains billions of other supra-multiverses. And so on and on ad infinitum. But is it possible that we can go on like this indefinitely without stopping somewhere? Can there be an infinite regress in this way? So we will have to stop at some level. But at whichever level we will stop, we will have to say that nothing is there beyond this or that level. So if we decide that we will stop at the universe level, then we will have to say that nothing is there beyond the universe. That means the universe as a whole will be neither in any space nor in any time, because there will be nothing outside the universe. If we stop at the multiverse level, then we will have to say that the multiverse as a whole is neither in any space nor in any time, because there will be nothing outside the multiverse. In each case the entity being as a whole neither in space nor in time will be thus spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. This is because all these properties are the default properties of something that is neither in space nor in time.2

Here I want to add one more point. Some atheists argue that they are not afraid of an infinite regress and so they do not require any kind of god/God for stopping this regress. But in reality infinity has no meaning, it is a logical absurdity. If we start counting from 1 and if we want to count up to infinity, then we will never be able to do that even if we are given an infinite amount of time and even if we continue this counting generation after generation. Similarly if we imagine that we are having an infinite past, then from that infinitely past moment this present moment could never be arrived at, because there would always be an infinite number of moments ahead of that infinitely past moment that would have to be elapsed before this present moment could be reached.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/god-cannot-be-defined-gods-attributes-can-only-be-described/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

 

Easiest Way to prove that there is a God

Recently I put the following question to an atheist:

‘Can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness, but that is not hard itself?’

His reply was this:

‘That doesn’t make sense.’

Then again I wrote to him:

‘Thanks for your reply. From your reply it becomes clear that you also think that only a hard thing can have the property of hardness. I think this can further be translated to this: a hard thing will have the property of hardness simply because it is hard and not due to any other reason or factor lying outside of it. This is because if something can have the property of hardness due to some reason or factor lying outside of it, then in that case a thing that is not hard itself can also have this property. Am I clear up to this point?’

This made him furious. His angry retort was this:

‘Just how stupid do you think I am, Socrates? Tell me the point, don’t try to sell me this scholastical dialectic.’

So I had to say goodbye to him with this:

‘I am not trying to sell you anything. I am just trying to show that there is evidence for the existence of God. But if you feel offended, then I will have to stop right now.’

Actually the point that I was trying to establish was that a thing cannot have the property of hardness if it is not itself hard.

Now what I am going to write is for the sake of argument only. Nothing is being asserted here. That means the case I am going to discuss below is purely a hypothetical one.

Let us now suppose that what is really impossible has actually become possible, that there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself. In that case what will we have to conclude from this? We will have to conclude that the thing in question must have received this so-called property of hardness from something external to it (say A). Now it may be the case that A has also received this property from B, B has received it from C and so on ad infinitum. So here there will be an infinite regress. In order to stop this infinite regress we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a hard thing in nature from which the thing in question could have received its property of hardness.

That means if we find a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then that thing will give us the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature.

In a similar vein we can also say that if we find in nature a thing that has the property of softness but that is not soft itself, then that thing will give us the evidence that there is at least one soft thing in nature.

In the same vein again we can also say that if we find in nature an entity that has the property of timelessness but that is not timeless itself, then that entity will give us the evidence that there is at least one timeless entity in the universe.

Now is there an entity in nature that has the property of timelessness but that is not timeless itself? Yes, there is. Light is such an entity. SR has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. That means light has the property of timelessness. But light is not timeless, because light can be extinguished at any time. No star will burn forever in the sky. But a really timeless entity can never cease to be, because for it time does not exist. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. But for a timeless entity this very next moment will never arrive, because it is not in time. Thus a really timeless entity can never cease to be. That means the case of light is akin to the case of a thing that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, which will further mean that the property of timelessness is not light’s own inalienable property. Rather we will have to presume that it has received this property from some entity external to it. Here also we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a timeless entity in the universe if we want to stop the infinite regress.

So, the property of timelessness of light shows that there is a timeless entity in this universe from which light has received its so-called property. As we have seen a timeless entity is also a deathless entity because it can never cease to be, so we can say that the property of light shows that there is a timeless and deathless entity in this universe.

An entity can have the property of timelessness due to two reasons:

1) If it is not in time;

2) Or, it can have this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it.

Being not in time an entity will have this property simply by default. Being not in time it can never cease to be, because for it there will never be any second moment. As light can be extinguished at any time, so we cannot say about light that it has this property because it is not in time. Rather we will have to say that it has this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it. So in order to stop the infinite regress here we will have to ultimately posit the existence of an entity that will have this property simply because it is not in time.

Simply put:

Hardness is the property of a hard thing only. So, if we find this property in something that is not hard itself, then from that we can infer that there is a hard thing in nature.

Similarly we can say that timelessness is the property of a timeless entity only. So, if we find this property in some entity that is not timeless itself, then from that we can also infer that there is a timeless entity in the universe.

Please also read my article ‘Property of Hardness’ here1.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/property-of-hardness/

God cannot be defined, God’s Attributes can only be described

Atheists sometimes object that there is no clear definition of a god/God. Here I want to say very clearly that God cannot be defined, God’s attributes can only be described. If God is the creator of the universe, then from this it follows that before creation God was alone and that there was no one else, nothing else other than God. As universe means space, time, matter and energy, so from this it follows that before creation there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That means God was neither in any space nor in any time and that God could contain neither any matter nor any energy, because before creation there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Being neither in space nor in time God will be thus spaceless and timeless. Containing neither any matter nor any energy God will be thus immaterial and his total energy will be zero. All these directly follow from the statement that God is the creator of the universe. By simple logic it can also be shown that this God being spaceless and timeless will also have the following attributes: God will be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.1

Some believers also say that God is omnipotent and omniscient; God is all-powerful and all-knowing. But I do not think so. God being the creator of the universe must have necessary power and knowledge for creating it. Otherwise how has God created the universe? But I do not think that solely due to this reason God can be called omnipotent and omniscient.

Thus the complete description of the creator of the universe 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.

Whatever else has been said about this God is just wishful thinking.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

 

Something or Someone must exist Beyond Space-time

There is good reason to believe that something or someone exists beyond space-time. Whatever exists within space-time is contingent upon space-time for its existence. If space-time is gone, then everything within space-time will also be gone. So it cannot acquire any property or characteristic either from space-time itself or from anything within space-time that will make space-time itself non-existent, because by that process it will cause its own demise. This is simple common sense. Our existence is contingent upon the existence of earth; so if we destroy the earth, we will also be destroyed.
Now light originates within space-time; that means the existence of light is contingent upon the existence of space-time. So in case of light also the above will be true; light cannot acquire any property or properties either from space-time itself or from anything within space-time that will make space-time non-existent for it. But from SR we see that time totally stops for light and that even infinite distance becomes zero for it. That means space and time become non-existent for light. Therefore due to the reason given above we can say that light must have received these two properties from someone or something whose existence is not contingent upon the existence of space-time and whose existence will not be affected in any way even when space-time is gone.

Discover

A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void