Tag Archives: Spacelessness

Which God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universe has been created by God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Advertisements

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? PART I

Atheists do have some deep-seated basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.

The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:

  • There is nothing supernatural; and
  • Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.

However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.

In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.

Me

‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’

This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.

Atheist1

“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.

Me

Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

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

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.

Atheist1

“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.

“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.

“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.

“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.

Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.

Me

From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.

Atheist1

“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.

“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”

In simple terms:

  1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
  2. The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.
  3. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.

“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.

“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.

Me

Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”

But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.

So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant galaxy, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?

Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?

On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?

Here there are only two possibilities:

1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;

2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.

If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.

If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.

Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.

Here Atheist1 is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:

1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:

2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and

3) Distance is also variable.

Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that mathematics of SR is wrong.

Atheist2

So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem? 

Me

Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

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

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time. 

Atheist2

‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’

That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.

So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time. 

Me

A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do. 

Atheist2

‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’

Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.

Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.

‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’

No, just that photons don’t experience time.

‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’

If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation. 

Me

‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’

So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted. 

Atheist2

‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’

No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.

‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’

No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete. 

Me

There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and

2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.

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/

How The Concept Of The Whole Helps Us Prove The Existence Of God

In my earlier post1 I have stated that science has not acted wisely by showing how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. If nothing is spaceless and timeless in the universe, then it is not at all understandable as to why science will have to show this. One can even think that science has given us a false picture of reality here, because it has provided an explanation for something that does not even exist in nature. In such a case the reliability of science itself will be put in question.

Perhaps not being able to face such harsh criticism from my side, one person was ultimately compelled to admit that light is spaceless and timeless. Yes, if at least one entity is spaceless and timeless in the universe, then it is quite logical as to why science would show how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, because it is the job of science to provide explanation for all the events, phenomena or effects in nature.

If one admits that at least one entity is spaceless and timeless in the universe, then it becomes quite easy for us to provide an evidence for the existence of God. This is with the help of our concept of The Whole.

Now it can be shown that the two properties of spacelessness and timelessness that light is having are actually the default properties of The Whole. What I mean to say by the phrase ‘the default properties of The Whole’ is this: The Whole will be having these two properties by virtue of it being The Whole. That means it will be having these two properties simply because it is The Whole and not due to any other reason lying outside of it.  Now what is The Whole? Let me first give one example. We know that there is the universe. Now we can define the universe in such a way that it will become The Whole. For the universe to be The Whole its definition will be something like this: universe is that which contains within itself everything that exists. As per this definition nothing can ever exist outside the universe, because whatever will exist will exist within the universe; we have defined the universe in that way only. As in such a case nothing can ever exist outside the universe, so there will be no space and no time outside it. Thus it will always be spaceless and timeless and it will be so simply by default, because its very definition entails that there can never be anything outside it. As an example, a bachelor is unmarried by default, because we define the word “bachelor” as that man who is not and has never been married.

Now we are in a position to leave the universe as it is and proceed to defining The Whole. The Whole is that which contains within itself everything that is there and it will also be spaceless and timeless by default, as I have already explained above. A married bachelor is self-contradictory, because a man who is married can never be called a bachelor. Of course a bachelor can marry, but after marriage he will no longer remain a bachelor. Thus a married bachelor will always remain self-contradictory. Similarly The Whole that is not spaceless and timeless is also self-contradictory. Now if one has understood as to why The Whole is spaceless and timeless by default, then she will also understand as to why light cannot be spaceless and timeless by default. This is because light is not The Whole; it does not contain within itself everything that is there. If nonetheless we find that light possesses these two properties, then the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it must have received them from some other source lying outside of it. If this source be something other than The Whole, then there will be an infinite regress. In order to stop this infinite regress we will have to ultimately posit the existence of The Whole. That means the fact that light possesses some of the properties of The Whole in spite of the fact that it is not The Whole shows that The Whole exists.

Here one may argue that this shows The Whole exists. Does it show that God exists? Yes, it shows. This is because God is The Whole. We have already explained here2 as to why God is The Whole.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/science-has-not-acted-wisely/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

 

Science has not Acted Wisely

Even if there is a God, that God need not have to be the God of the Bible. There are other concepts of God also.1

About the supernatural God it has been said that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. And then supposing that this supernatural God is real and not just a figment of our imagination science has shown as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Special theory of relativity has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and it has also shown that any distance light has to travel becomes zero for it. Even infinite distance becomes zero for light! If certain volume of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then due to these two properties of light volume of that room will become zero and time also will totally stop there. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless and timeless state will obtain.

If someone is spaceless and timeless, then it can be shown very easily that this spaceless and timeless being will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.2

So here science has not acted wisely by supposing that a figment of our imagination is actually real.

Reference:

  1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/beyond-good-and-evil/
  2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

 

Is It the Job of the Scientists to Manufacture Truth, Or to Discover It?

Although many scientists have verbally denied God, yet through their scientific work they have always remained faithful to their creator God. I will give a few examples here.

1) I have already shown that a creator God cannot be anything other than spaceless, timeless and immaterial. 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 creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. God is immaterial means God contains no matter. As matter and energy are equivalent, so we can say that God contains no energy. So total energy of God is zero. God is the source from which everything has originated. If the source does not contain any energy, then the outcome – here, the universe – cannot contain any energy. That means the total energy of the universe cannot be other than zero. Remaining faithful to their creator God scientists have also shown that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero.

2) God is also said to be spaceless and timeless. If God is really there, then there will be the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to the 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 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 it can be seen that due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time in our universe will fail to have the same values in each and every case, which they must have if they are to be absolute. So in this situation it is impossible for space and time to be absolute. Here also remaining faithful to their creator God scientists have shown that space and time are not at all absolute.

3) God is said to be timeless. Remaining again faithful to the creator God Einstein has shown how a timeless state can obtain. Special theory of relativity (SR) has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops.

4) God is said to be spaceless. In this case also Einstein remained faithful to the creator God and has shown how a spaceless state can obtain. SR has shown that travel distance becomes zero for light. If certain amount of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then the volume of that room will be zero due to this property of light. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless state will obtain.

5) We say God is omnipresent; God is everywhere. God is everywhere means God is wholly present, fully present, entirely present at each and every point of the universe. As God is equally 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 in the universe must be zero, because one cannot be distant from one’s own self. This truth of God’s omnipresence has been revealed to us by the scientists through the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

In all the five cases above scientists could have shown just the opposite than what they have actually shown, thus falsifying God. Just show that the universe as a whole has non-zero energy value, God will be falsified. Or show that it is in no way possible to be spaceless and timeless, again God will be falsified. Or show that space and time are not relative, but absolute and God will be falsified. Any one of these shown by them could have falsified God for all time to come. And the scientists were always free to falsify him. But despite that they have failed to do so. This is solely because as scientists it is not their job to manufacture truth, but to discover it. So it was not at all possible for them to do anything other than what they had actually done, even if they had wanted to.

 

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?

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.

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