A Recent Debate with an Atheist

 

Me:

Here is a link below:

Here I give reference to my article ‘ Is “Fine Tuning” Actually Required For Proving The Existence Of God?’

One can go through this link and decide for oneself whether there is any God or not.

Atheist:

” During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped.”That is complete nonsense. At any point during those one billion years, it will be at a certain point in space between that star and Earth. There is no point at which the distance between the star and earth becomes zero. And as time, distance and speed are related (speed = distance/time), that photon of light is still very much in the realm of space-time by travelling from the star to Earth. Your first premise is completely incorrect and unfortunately it then completely undermines your entire subsequent argument.”Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.”Photons are energy packets, they energy is transferred to something else. It does not ‘cease to be’ – such a thing would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”So light originating within space and time goes beyond space and time, because space and time become non-existent for it.”Again, that is completely false as I explained above.”And we cannot claim that this is without any cause. “We actually can. There are a number of physical phenomenon that happen (especially at the quantum level) without cause, such as radioactive decay. How have you demonstrated that this (even if it were true) doesn’t fall into this category.”But whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time; it is impossible.”Why not?”A cause that lies within space and time is a natural cause, but a cause that lies beyond space and time is not a natural cause; it is a supernatural cause.”Why? Sorry, but that article of yours is complete word salad. You have made any number of baseless assumptions to try and explain a premise that is demonstrably false to begin with.

Me:

From your reply it appears that you know nothing about the special theory of relativity and its two features of length contraction and time dilation. So please read about these subjects in Wikipedia and then make a fresh comment.

Atheist:

Contraction and dilation are not ‘removal from’. There is no point at which the photon is outside the realm of space and time. I suggest you go and actually study quantum physics, ideally at at least A Level, preferable BSc, rather than read lay summaries from Wikipedia and then make a fresh comment.

Me:

Distance from the star to the earth is one billion light-years if seen from earth’s reference frame. So there is a space gap of one billion light-years between the earth and the star. Do you mean to say this space-gap remains the same for light also, if contraction does not mean ‘removal from’? Please make this point clear first. Then I can proceed further.

Atheist:

Yes, if the distance between the star and the earth is 1 billion light years, then the distance the light photon has to travel is… 1 billion light years!

Me:

“Yes, if the distance between the star and the earth is 1 billion light years, then the distance the light photon has to travel is… 1 billion light years!”

So you are saying that the distance between the earth and the star remains the same for us as well as for the light photon, because as per you light photon will have to travel a distance of one billion light years, and not zero distance as per the equation of special theory of relativity. If what you are saying is accepted as correct, then that will only mean that space and time are absolute, not relative. But this directly goes against the findings of one well-established theory of science. So do you want to challenge the special theory of relativity?

Atheist:

No… I think you are just misunderstanding the theory of relativity. You are aware that the very term ‘light year’ is defined as the distance travelled by a photon of light in a year, right? So if the star is 1 billion light years away, then the photon of light has to travel… wait for it… 1 billion light years! By definition! Perhaps you are thinking of the how the relative mass of an object gets heavier as it approaches the speed of light – with the resulting time dilation effects you previously mentioned. However, light photons have no mass and so aren’t affected by this rule. In fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant – one of the most fundamental constants in all of physics! So the light photon has to travel 1 billion light years, by definition, at the speed of light, by definition. Meaning by the simple equation speed=distance/over time, at any given point in space, it will have been travelling for a certain amount of time, or at any time, it will be at a given point in space. At no point will it be in a timeless, spaceless conditions – it remains fully within the bounds of space and time. You are just flat out wrong here.

Me:

Again I am asking you the same question. From our reference frame the distance between the star and the earth is one billion light years. From light’s own reference frame what is the distance between the star and the earth?

Atheist:

Surprisingly enough… 1 billion light years!

Me:

Thank you a lot for this answer. This answer of yours clearly shows that for you space and time are absolute. So I have nothing more to say here. I am quitting.

Atheist:

No, you are just some purveyor of woo who likes big scientific words in their arguments without understanding what they mean. First up, relativity applies to moving objects. For instance, if I am travelling in a car at 50 mph and a car overtakes me at 70 mph, from my frame of reference, the car is doing 20 mph. However, seen from a static observer, the car is still doing 70 mph. That’s relativity in a nutshell. Now, if I am on top of a mountain A and you are on top of another mountain B and the distance between them is 10 miles, it doesn’t matter whether it is from mine or your perspective, the distance between the two peaks is 10 miles. So the distance between the earth and star is 10 billion light years – that IS absolute! How long it will SEEM, depends on the size, mass and speed of the object travelling between them. Except photons HAVE no mass or size when travelling through a vacuum, because their wave-particle nature is entirely wavelike and will not change until they meet an object. Which is why the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant – 2.998 x 10^8 metres per second squared. So we have a total distance of 10 billion light years which is the equivalent of 9.46 x 10^25 metres. By the simple equation speed=distance/time, rearranged to give time=distance/speed we get a total travelling time of 3.16 x 10^17 seconds, or 5.26 x 10^15 minutes, 8.77 x 10^13 hours, 3.65 x 10^12 days, or 10 billion years! So the distance has a value, the speed is a constant and the resulting time for the photon to travel ALSO has a value. NONE of these values is 0 so your assertion, therefore, that from travelling between the two points the photon has is in a spaceless, timeless condition is WRONG!!! Demonstrably so, run the maths yourself if you don’t believe me! You will NEVER get one of those value to zero!

Me:

Please send your new theory of light to some well-reputed scientific journal for peer review. If your theory gets accepted, then who can say that you will not get a Nobel Prize in future for your new theory of light?

Advertisements

Yes, There is a God

Actually science has already admitted the existence of a spaceless and timeless God on the very same day when science has declared that space and time in our universe are relative. This is because existence of a spaceless and timeless God implies the relativity of space and time. Mystics have repeatedly said about their God that he is spaceless and timeless. So, if there is a God, then there is the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, because this God is everlastingly present with all his attributes. Due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, space and time in our universe cannot be absolute. For space and time to be absolute, they will have to have the same values in each and every case without any single exception. But due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, space and time will have null values in at least one case, that is, in case of God, whereas in every other case they can have non-zero values. Thus we see that due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time will fail to have the same values in each and every case. Special theory of relativity (STR) has also shown that space and time in our universe are indeed relative. So, if STR is not a pseudo-science, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. That means that if STR is not a pseudo-science, then this God of the mystics is very much real and not merely an apparition as claimed by the atheists.

Whereas if there is no God, then in that case there will be no such state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe. So there will be no constraint on space and time that they will have to have null values in any single instance. Thus in that case it will be possible for space and time to be absolute. But we have not got such a universe.

I want to add one more point here. If anyone on this earth can show that despite the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time in our universe can still have absolute values, then let him/her show it. In that case we will also have to admit that there is no God.

Why Does The Universe Exist?

The question ‘Why does the universe exist?’ can be answered in two steps:

1) First of all we will have to know as to whether there is any God or not;

2) If we can somehow come to know that there is a God, then we can further ask the question as to why he created the universe. When we will have the answer to this question, we will also come to know as to why the universe exists, why we exist.

The above two have already been answered here1 and here2 respectively.

But even if we somehow come to know the reason as to why the universe exists, yet this will not answer all the questions. This is because we can still ask the question: Why does God exist? If there is a God, then what is the reason that there will have to be a God at all? If we think that there is actually such a reason, then we must keep in mind that we will have to find this reason within God’s existence itself and not outside of it, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress. That means God must have to be a necessary being, not contingent. But what is the reason due to which God will have to exist at all? I think I have already answered this question here3, where I have shown that the existence of nothing is self-contradictory and that therefore only something can exist, and not nothing. I have also shown that simply by default this something will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.

So I think I have answered all the questions that can possibly be asked: Why does God exist? Why does the universe exist? Why do we exist? God will have to be there because existence of nothing is self-contradictory. Being there he will have to create the universe in order to overcome his utter loneliness.

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/2016/02/07/why-did-god-create-the-universe/
  3. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/is-there-a-god/

 

 

 

 

Why Did God Create The Universe?

John Zande, a militant atheist, in a blog post Why? A Challenge to all Believers (December 4, 2015)1 has put this question to all believers:

                         Why did your God create this universe?

He thinks that it is a question that should haunt every waking hour of a believer and occupy his every thought. He also thinks that this question is such that every believer should obsess over it, maddened by its dazzling conspicuousness, and embarrassed beyond all measure that it even exists. This question should consume his life, tying him up in ferocious knots of disquiet and affording no genuine peace until a definitive answer is found. But actually few theists ever ask this question, and even fewer ever attempt a possible, maybe, perhaps, never-quite-certain answer.

Then in the rest of the blog he asks again:

“If all things (the past, the present, and the future) are contained within a maximally powerful being, the Catalogue of Catalogues who existed in a state of perfection, then why did it consciously create the physical universe? What possible purpose does this machine, this contrivance, serve?”

Although he thinks that the question he has put to the believers cannot have any never-quite-certain answer, yet it is not true at all, because definitely there is an answer, and of course it is a quite-certain answer.

Imagine yourself in place of God. Imagine that you are only there in this vast universe and that there is no one else other than you. Imagine that you will have to be there in this condition forever and ever, forever and ever, forever and ever, because you can never cease to be, because you can never die. So you will be all alone in this universe forever and ever, forever and ever, forever and ever. We know that as human beings we suffer a lot in this earthly life, but at the same time we also know that one day all these sufferings will come to an end with our inevitable death. But what about the loneliness of God? Will that ever come to an end? Can God bring it to an end by committing suicide one day? If he cannot, then what shall he have to do in order to overcome his utter loneliness?

Please try to find an answer to this question yourself. The answer is so obvious that I need not have to give you that.

Reference:

  1. https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/why-a-challenge-to-all-believers/

Atheists and A Believer

Commenting in an atheist’s blog is not an easy affair for a believer, because sometimes one will find that his/her comment has been deleted without any apparent reason. I myself have this type of experience several times in my life, but I will cite just two such recent cases here.

In one blog my initial comment was this:

About God it has been said that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About this same God it has also been said that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. If atheists deny the existence of any God, then that will mean that in this universe there is no one about whom it can be said that he/she is omnipotent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless etc. & etc. Now it might be the case that although there is no such God, yet there is something in this universe which is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but about which it can still be said that it is spaceless, timeless, changeless etc. & etc. If atheists deny the existence of that thing also, then that will mean there is no one or nothing in this universe that is spaceless, timeless, changeless etc. If special theory of relativity (STR) is not a pseudo-science, then STR clearly shows that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. Volume of an entire universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. As zero volume means no space, so here we are getting an explanation of spacelessness from science. Again from STR we come to know that time totally stops at the speed of light. So here we are getting an explanation of timelessness from science. So it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. If no one or nothing in this universe is spaceless and timeless, then why was it necessary for science to provide such and such explanation?

The blog-owner wrote a reply to this, the gist of which I am reproducing here in my own words: I have actually got things back to front. First SR and GR should finally get accepted and then only theologians and apologists should deal with it. Before SR, God was usually called incorporeal, now he is called spaceless and timeless. So spacelessness and timelessness are relatively new concepts. My whole argument implies that God is a photon, or the photon, because all photons could be considered the same photon. In that case God would be the light.

In my reply I have to show that spacelessness and timelessness of God are really pretty old concepts, and not new at all, coming only after relativity theory. My reply comment was this:

I know that you have a distaste for William lane Craig’s writings. Still I am quoting a passage from Craig’s writing just to show that spacelessness and timelessness of God are not at all relatively new concepts:

“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.”

Ref: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html (Dr. Craig’s opening arguments)


Here Dr. Craig is merely echoing the words of Thomas Aquinas. In Thomas Aquinas’ words also God is spaceless and timeless.
I do not think you will now say that Thomas Aquinas is our contemporary. Actually spacelessness and timelessness are the two most common attributes of God that have been mentioned in almost every religion, either eastern or western. When I first began surfing in the internet, I was astonished to find that in almost every discussion on God by the theists as well as by the atheists, only these three attributes of God were mentioned: his omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. But never his other attributes like spacelessness and timelessness. I do not know why it was so.

So it is not at all true that “The spacelessness and timelessness of god are relatively (ha-ha) new concepts”.

In the year 2003 I published a book in Bengali in which I had shown that the existence of a spaceless and timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. The gist of my argument was this: Space and time are non-real, non-existent for that being, whereas they are very much real and existent for us human beings. So if such a being is really there, then space and time cannot have absolute values, because for those to be absolute they must have to have the same values for everybody, which is impossible in such a case. Special theory of relativity (STR) has also shown that space and time are indeed relative. So if STR is not a pseudo-science, then on the basis of the findings of this theory we can no longer discard mystical experience as a hallucination, because mystics have repeatedly said that God is spaceless and timeless. But the reviewer of my book (an atheist) was dishonest, and so he very scrupulously remained totally silent in his review about that particular portion of my book where I had given my reason as to why mystical experience could not be discarded as a mere hallucination, whereas he could have easily shown where I had faltered in my argument and why therefore on the basis of such argument I should not claim that the existence of God had been proven.

So it is not true that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But the fact is that when any such evidence is offered, it is usually ignored by the atheistic community.

It is my usual practice that whenever I post a comment in any blog, I keep a copy of that blog in my hard disk. This time also I did the same thing. After a few days when I reopened the blog from the internet, I could not find the above comment of mine printed there. So I had to open it from my hard disk and found the comment intact there. That means in the meantime the blog-owner had deleted it.

 

In another blog my initial comment was this:

Some scientists claim that the universe has actually originated from nothing without needing any divine intervention. If everything has originated from nothing, then not only the total matter and energy, but the total space-time also of this present universe have originated from nothing. So not only its total matter and energy, but its total space-time as well should always remain zero. Scientists have successfully shown as to how the total matter and energy of this universe always remain zero. Now the burden falls on these scientists to show how the total space-time of our present universe also always remains zero. And it should remain zero if the universe has actually originated from nothing. Again the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. So they have the burden to answer this question: How does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?

For a detailed discussion of this point one can see the below-listed links:
1) 
https://sekharpal.wordpress.co…
2) 
https://sekharpal.wordpress.co…

The blog was about the burden of proof and therefore I thought it fit to post the above comment. The reply-comment posted by the blog-owner did not contain anything that deserved to be commented against. However another person posted something against my comment that definitely deserved a reply from my side. In his comment he accused me that I had created a straw man argument, because I did not specify the name of those scientists who said that something could be created from nothing. He wrote that he had never heard any scientist say ‘something was created from nothing’. I had made some vague statements that referred to ‘space time’ and ‘zero energy’. These vague statements might sound clever to those unfamiliar with the subject, but probably amounted to little more than gibberish without a very strong foundational knowledge of the subject.

So here I was obliged to make my position clear. My reply comment was this:

It was E. P. Tryon who first proposed in the year 1973 that our universe may have arisen as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum without violating any conservation law of physics (Tryon, Nature 246, 396, 1973). Thereafter a lot of scientists began to say the same thing. Among them some prominent names are: Victor J Stenger, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Alexei V. Filippenko, Jay M. Pasachoff and Paul Davies. Alexander Vilenkin proposed a somewhat different theory because in his model the vacuum itself was not there. The only reason as to why so many scientists have proposed that our universe could have come from nothing without any divine intervention is that they have found that the total energy of the universe is zero.

I have gone through the below-listed links where it has been mentioned that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) http://iopscience.iop.org/arti… (V. Faraoni and F. I. Cooperstock)

2) https://www.astrosociety.org/p… nothing/ (Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff)

3) http://mxplx.com/meme/2098/ (Stephen Hawking)

4) http://www.brainyquote.com/quo… 
(Richard P Feynman)

5) http://www.scielo.br/scielo.ph… (A. A. Sousa; J. S. Moura; R. B. Pereira)

6) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB… (Lawrence Krauss)

7) http://www.independent.co.uk/a… (Paul Davies)

8) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog… (Aron Wall)

9) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog… (Aron Wall)

10) http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/060… (Marcelo Samuel Berman)

11) http://www.science20.com/hammo… (Johannes Koelman)

 

Here also I saved a copy of the blog in my hard disk as usual. After a few weeks when I reopened it from the internet, I found that the comment had been deleted.

 

As the visitors to this particular blog post will never know how I justified myself against the accusation brought against me, so I will always appear to them as a person who only creates a straw man argument and writes some gibberish without a very strong foundational knowledge of the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Ref:

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

 

Is “Fine Tuning” Actually Required for Proving the Existence of God?

It is not actually necessary that “fine tuning” of certain parameters will have to exist in reality for proving the existence of God. I think light with its very peculiar properties is sufficient for that purpose.

Light originates within space and time but it goes beyond space and time. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped. So it will be neither in space nor in time during the total period of its existence. Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.

So light originating within space and time goes beyond space and time, because space and time become non-existent for it. And we cannot claim that this is without any cause. As light is not a conscious entity, so neither can we claim here that light has the capability of deciding its own fate that it will go beyond space and time. So this must have been caused by something else. But whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time; it is impossible. Let us suppose that this cause is A and that it lies within space and time. We can now ask two questions about A:

1) Are space and time non-existent for A also?

2) Or, are they not non-existent for A?

If 2), then how can A cause space and time becoming non-existent for light when they are not non-existent for A itself? But if 1), then we will have to ask the same question about A that we were earlier asking about light: what causes space and time becoming non-existent for A, when we know very well that A lies within space and time? So we see that A cannot be the ultimate cause that makes space and time non-existent for light, because here we will have to find out again the cause that makes space and time non-existent for A itself. In this way it can be shown that there will be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing within space and time that can be this cause. So ultimately we will have to go beyond space and time in search of this cause. A cause that lies within space and time is a natural cause, but a cause that lies beyond space and time is not a natural cause; it is a supernatural cause. So the cause that makes space and time non-existent for light is a supernatural cause.

Now one can raise an objection here that it cannot be the case that light is neither in space nor in time, because we can see the star and therefore the photon must have existed in some space-time during its transition from the star to the earth. But in which space and for how long did it exist during this transition? This is because the equations of SR show that both the travel time and the travel distance have become zero for light. So if SR as a theory is correct, then light cannot, and does not, exist in any space for any time.

Some may also think that SR is a bad theory and that it requires immediate replacement, because the conclusions that can be drawn from this theory are so counter-intuitive and contradictory to our commonsensical and everyday notion of existence. Here anybody can offer a better theory if he/she thinks so and get it accepted by the peers before challenging a well-established theory of science.

About light one can also read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011)1

Ref:

  1. http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

 

 

 

 

Where Science has gone Wrong

I think there are at least three cases where science has gone wrong so far.

1) The first case is that physicists have found that the total energy of our present universe is zero. On the basis of this fact they have concluded that the entire universe has originated from nothing. But this is a wrong conclusion, because I have already shown here1 that the total energy of the universe would also be zero even if it has originated from something and not from nothing. So zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.

2) The second case is that if we take it for granted that the universe has originated from nothing, then not only its total matter and energy, but its total space-time as well have also originated from nothing. So not only its total matter and energy, but its total space-time also should always remain zero, because space, time, matter and energy-all the four of them have originated from nothing. Something can come out of nothing provided that the totality of that something always remains zero. So total space, total time, total matter and total energy of our present universe must always remain zero if it is claimed that the universe has originated from nothing. Although scientists have shown that the total matter and the total energy of the universe is zero, but they have not yet shown as to how the total space and the total time of the present universe also remain zero. This is one major drawback in their theory that the universe has originated from nothing. And if this theory cannot explain as to how the total space-time of the universe also remains zero, then these scientists will not be able to convince us that universe’s origin from nothing is actually the case.

This point has also been discussed in detail here2 and here3.

3) The third case is that scientists have artificially created a vacuum and then they have observed that virtual particles are still coming out of that vacuum. From this observation they have jumped to the conclusion that something can actually come out of nothing. Then they have further concluded that the entire universe has also come out of nothing due to the quantum energy fluctuation in a void. But this conclusion may not be a sound one, because first of all it will have to be ascertained as to whether the void created by them is a real void or not. Scientists have created a void within the universe and not outside of it. If there is a God, then that God is omnipresent, everywhere. So, if there is a God, then the void created within the universe will not be a real void at all, because in that case there will be the presence of God within the void itself. In case there is no God, then only it can be said with certainty that the void is a real void. So first of all it will have to be established that there is no God. Without establishing this point first if these scientists want to proceed further based on their assumption that the void is a real void, then all their conjectures, and all their conclusions based on those conjectures, might be proved wrong if ultimately it is found that there is a God. And to prove that there is no God it is necessary to show that there is no hand of God behind the creation event. That means scientists will have to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. This is because if there is a God, then definitely this universe will be his creation, and so if this natural explanation for universe’s origin can be given, then it will show once and for all that there is no God. And it will also show once and for all that the void is a real void.

But instead of doing this first thing first, scientists have already presupposed that there is no God when they have concluded that the void created by them is a real void. Then based on this presupposition that there is no God they have shown that no God is actually necessary for creating the universe, because it can naturally arise out of nothing due to the quantum energy fluctuation in a void. So this is nothing but a pure case of circular reasoning.

This point has also been discussed here4 and here5.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.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://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/a-fundamental-flaw-in-the-thesis-a-universe-from-nothing-part-II/
  4. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/a-critique-of-the-void/
  5. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/something-from-nothing-part-ii/

Lawrence Krauss’ Faulty Logic

In the year 2010 scientist Lawrence M Krauss wrote an article in Wall Street Journal1 in which he has argued that as the total energy of our present universe is found to be zero, so from this it can be concluded that it has originated from nothing. The gist of his argument is something like this: let us suppose that the universe has actually originated from nothing at all. (Here this nothing is the so-called nothing of the scientists, not the usual nothing of the philosophers.) Then in that case the total energy of the universe would obviously be zero, because here everything has started from zero or nothing. Surprisingly scientists have also found that the total energy of the present universe is zero. So naturally it can be said that it has actually originated from nothing, because in that case only its total energy is expected to be zero.

But this reasoning is faulty. This is because it can be shown that 1) if the universe has originated from something and not from nothing, then in that case also the total energy of the universe would be zero; and 2) if the universe has been created by some supernatural agent, then again its total energy would be zero.

Case 2): First I will show how the total energy of the universe would be zero if it is created by some supernatural agent. Let us say that this supernatural agent who has created the universe is God. Now what does it mean that the universe has been created by God? As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy have 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 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. Neither this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God can contain any energy, because energy was also created by God along with the creation of the universe. That means the total energy content of God is zero. Therefore the total energy content of the universe will also be zero, because universe cannot contain more energy than the source from which it has originated.

Here it might be objected that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But if we keep in mind that the total energy of the universe has always remained fixed at its zero value, then we can say that as such energy has not been created or destroyed at all. Only that it has taken positive and negative forms in the universe, the total energy always remaining zero. The same can be said about matter also.

Case 1): Here we will have to rely on the findings of two modern scientific theories e.g. the two theories of relativity. Regarding any scientific theory it is usually said that all theories are provisional. That means any current scientific theory can be superseded by some new theory in future. But if the old theory is a well-established and tested theory, then it can never be totally falsified. Only its limitations will be known to us. Although Newton’s theory of gravity has been replaced by Einstein’s theory of gravity, yet Newton’s theory has still its applicability in limited cases.

We say that the universe had originated from something. That means before the origin of the universe from that something there was nothing else other than that something – no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Space, time, matter and energy came into being after the origin of the universe from that something. Now Einstein’s general theory of relativity has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any space and time without matter. Similarly there cannot be any matter without space and time. Again from Einstein’s special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. So instead of saying that there cannot be any matter without space and time, we can also say that there cannot be any energy without space and time. Now we have already shown that the initial something was without space and time. But we have also shown that there cannot be any energy without space and time. So the initial something cannot have any energy. Therefore the total energy of the universe originated from that something will also be zero, because it cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

So, if the universe has a beginning, then it is quite immaterial as to whether it has originated from something or from nothing or whether it has been created by God. This is because in all the three cases above it will start with zero energy. So from the mere fact that the total energy of our present universe has been found to be zero, it cannot be concluded that it has actually originated from nothing, because in the other two cases also its total energy would be zero. So zero total energy cannot be the only factor on the basis of which we can conclude that our present universe has actually originated from nothing.

  1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936

Can There be Two Types of Timelessness: One Mystical, Another Scientific?

 

Mystics who have claimed that they have direct experience of God have repeatedly and unanimously told us one thing: Time is unreal. If mystical experience gives the mystic the sensation that time is unreal and if one wants to establish that mystical experience is nothing but a mere hallucination, then he must have to show here that the mystics were wrong in holding that time is unreal. Here anyone who has minimum common sense will understand that the best possible way to do this is to show that time can never become unreal. But here science has done just the opposite; it has actually shown as to how and when time can become unreal. Instead of myself saying anything about how time actually becomes unreal, I will let one scientist speak for me here. Dr. Sacha Vongehr is a physicist and philosopher and he writes regularly in the science blog Science 2.0. In an article ‘The Fundamental Nature of Light’1 published in that blog on February 3rd, 2011 he has written that as per relativity ‘light has no time to see’. What he meant to say here was that for light ‘time would stop and the travel time between any two points, even between here and the edge of the observable universe, would be exactly zero’.

So we very clearly see here that science has definitely shown as to how time can become unreal, because it has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. But we have already said that in order to show that mystical experience is a hallucination, one must have to show that mystics’ view regarding time was completely mistaken. But science has miserably failed to do that, because instead of showing that time can in no way become unreal it has actually shown as to how it can become unreal, thus providing ample support to mystical view about time. As science has in no way contradicted mystical view here, so by what kind of logic is it established that mystical experience is a hallucination? If mystical experience can no longer be discarded as a mere hallucination, then by what kind of logic is it established that God does not exist? We can also ask the following question here: Is this the right way to show that God does not exist?

If I say that time is unreal and if you want to prove me wrong and if I do possess some minimum common sense also, then I will definitely not expect from you that you would support my contention by showing to me as to how time can become unreal. Thus it appears from above that probably some scientists lack this minimum common sense who claim that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination.

In the year 2001 I had debated with an atheist regarding the existence of a spaceless and timeless God. In one of the e-mails he wrote to me: ‘What is “timeless”? We don’t know of anything “timeless”.’

But afterwards he was compelled to admit the following: ‘Some mystics might have said God is timeless, but I’m sure they didn’t have in mind the “timelessness” we see when we look at Einstein’s equations.’

In the latter case although he was admitting that science had dealt with timelessness, yet he was making some distinction here: Mystics’ timelessness is not the same as scientists’ timelessness.

Let the readers judge themselves as to whether there can be two types of timelessness: One mystical, another scientific.

It might be the case that there are more than one entities in this universe that are timeless, but is it possible that there are two types of timelessness?

 

Reference:

1. http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

 

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