Tag Archives: Timeless

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.

Are Scientists Biased?

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

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

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

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

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Reference:

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

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

.

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.

Existence of Anything can ultimately point to God.

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

 

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/

 

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.

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) God is said to be immaterial. This 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 (STR) 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. STR 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 can obtain.

In all the four 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 they 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 otherwise than what they had actually done, even if they had wanted to.