Tag Archives: Scientists

God of the Scientists

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

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

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

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

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

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

These quantum laws are scientists’ God.

Amen.                       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

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 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

Problem with an Eternal Universe

Some scientists are now saying that the universe is eternal, that it has always existed even before the big bang. Universe in its present form is only 13.8 billion years old, but before that it has existed in some other form. But before the big bang there was no space and no time, because space and time came into existence along with the big bang only. So if the universe was always there even before the big bang, then it was neither in space nor in time, because before the big bang there was no space and no time. Being neither in space nor in time it will thus be spaceless and timeless. It can be shown by simple logic that being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. It will be immaterial because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that either all the three of them will be there together, or none of then will be there. But this is the traditional description of God. So are these scientists subscribing to God?

One can see the link here: https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

The only way to come out of this mess is to say that if the universe has always existed even before the big bang, then space and time were already there even before the big bang and that the big bang occurred within the pre-existing space-time. The present universe is also expanding within this pre-existing space-time only.