Are Atheists Hypocrites?

The following is taken from a YouTube comment thread:

Atheist

So precious how theists all try to claim an infinite regress is impossible even though it isn’t but here’s this thing about human linguistics that makes even the idea of it absurd.

So obviously the limitations of human language prove an infinite regress is impossible.

Me to Atheist

Here, the question is not whether an infinite regress is possible or impossible. An infinite regress is non-observable and therefore, unscientific.

Below I am going to present an infinite regress of some sort. Please tell me how you will convince others that there is really such an infinite regress in nature.

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 that contains trillions of other galaxies.

The universe exists within the multiverse that contains trillions of other universes.

Cosmologists usually stop at this level; they do not go beyond the multiverse.

But there is no binding that we would have to stop here at the multiverse level at all.

So we would say that this multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains trillions of other multiverses.

Then we would again say that this super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains trillions of other super-multiverses.

Then we would again say that this super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains trillions of other super-duper multiverses.

Then we would again say that this supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains trillions of other supra-multiverses.

And so on and on ad infinitum.

We know earth exists. Therefore, there will also be an infinite regress of this sort:

Universe – Multiverse – Super-multiverse – Super-duper multiverse – Supra-multiverse – Supra-dupra multiverse – up to infinity.

If you are in favor of the infinite regress here, then you will have to give evidence that there is really such an infinite regress in nature. Will you please tell me how you, or anybody from the scientific community, will give that evidence?

Atheist to Me

That’s idiotic… The whole idea that you can’t have an infinite regress is an artifact of human linguistics and people deliberately misunderstanding Zeno’s paradox.

I don’t have to prove shit. You can feel free to try to disprove an infinite regress but I’m not going to waste my time playing with you fundies. Do your own god damn homework for once!

Better yet, provide some actual reason why it should be impossible.

Me to Atheist

Your comment has very nicely exposed the double standard of atheists.

In the case of God, you people will say that only logic and arguments are not sufficient; some concrete evidence is required.

But in the case of the infinite regress, you will forget your own dictum. Here, you will say that logic and arguments are sufficient; no evidence is required and nothing is to be proved.

In the case of the infinite regress, you atheists are blind believers.

You atheists are hypocrites.

My last comment was deleted twice.���~

The Ultimate Justification For a Creator

Part I

Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:

1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;

2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.

For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.

For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.

Now suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light causing space and time contract to zero for light.

If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?

Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?

Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?

                                          Part II

I have already stated that we do not know the reason due to which light is spaceless and timeless. But, whatever may be the reason of this, it can be shown that this reason cannot lie within the space and time of the universe.

Let us suppose that X is that reason and that X is within the universe. If X is not spaceless and timeless itself, then it is not possible for it to make another entity spaceless and timeless. So, X must have to be spaceless and timeless first, and then only it can make another entity spaceless and timeless. But, if X is also spaceless and timeless, then we will have to ask the same question about X that we were earlier asking about light: Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, how has it become spaceless and timeless? So, now we will have to search for the cause due to which X has become spaceless and timeless. Therefore, from this we can conclude that the cause due to which light is spaceless and timeless cannot lie within the space and time of the universe. It must lie outside any space and time.

The only entity that we know of that lies outside any space and time is the source from which our known spacetime has emerged. The existence of this entity in nature has already been confirmed once physicists have declared that spacetime is emergent. So, here is one entity that is spaceless and timeless by default, and for which we need not have to seek any further cause due to which it has become spaceless and timeless, because we already know that it is not within any space and time.

Now, if scientists can somehow show that this lifeless, mindless, and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless simply by default, can NATURALLY make another entity (aka light) spaceless and timeless, then this universe WILL NEVER NEED ANY GOD.

However, if they fail to do so, then only we will be compelled to posit some sort of consciousness here, because it is possible for a conscious being only to know how it is spaceless and timeless.

Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth and so, let science show that there is a natural explanation here.

We will be waiting for that explanation. o %�m�

Relativity of space and time and their cause

The cause that makes space and time to be relative in our universe must lie outside our universe. Otherwise we will have to admit that there was a time when they were not relative, but absolute.

We know that space and time are relative in our universe. But what is the cause that makes them to be relative? Let us say that A is the cause that makes space and time to be relative. Now regarding A there are two possibilities here:

1) This cause lies within space and time; and

2) it lies outside space and time.

Let us suppose that the cause A lies within space and time.  But this possibility is having one inherent problem in it. We say that A is the cause that makes space and time in our universe to be relative, and we also say that A lies within space and time. So when A made its first appearance within space and time, it also caused space and time to be relative for the first time. From that time onward they have remained relative so far. So from this it can be concluded that before the appearance of A within space and time, space and time were not relative; they were absolute. But will the scientists agree that space and time were not always relative, that they were not relative from the very beginning of their existence? But if they say that space and time were relative, and are still relative, from the very moment they came into existence, then they will also have to admit that the cause that makes space and time to be relative in our universe was already there prior to the moment space and time came into existence, that is, prior to the beginning of our universe.                                                            Endnote: For my new articles please see my new website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com

Zero-energy Universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God

Scientists have found that the total energy of the universe is zero. From there they have argued that the universe might have originated from nothing due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void, no God being needed for its creation. But I think zero-energy universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God.

If God is the creator, then he would be prior to the existence of space, time and matter. That is the reason we describe God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However one element is missing here: energy. God would be prior to the existence of energy also.

God being prior to space, time, matter and energy would be neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor energy, but something beyond them. That means in God there can be neither any space, nor any time, nor any matter, nor any energy.

If it is now true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then it would be true for God as well. This is because God being the law-giver we should not expect that God would break his own laws very frequently. So God would have to manage the entire creation event with zero energy.

However if the universe is not created, then there is no reason as to why the universe as a whole cannot have total non-zero energy value. As some atheistic scientists claim that quantum laws were always there, so in a similar manner some sort of energy might have been always there. Universe would begin its life with that energy and it would also contain that much of energy as a whole.

So, if the universe is created, then there would be at least one constraint due to which the universe can never have any energy, this constraint being God. In the other case there would be no such constraint and so the universe can freely have total non-zero energy.

Here my questions are two:

1) If quantum laws could have been always there, then why not energy?

2) So, what are the compelling factors due to which even an uncreated universe cannot have total non-zero energy?

Actually we can think of two different situations regarding the beginning of the universe:

Situation 1: There would be no energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe is created by God. Here the universe would start from zero energy and therefore it makes sense that the total energy of the universe would always remain zero, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Situation 2: There would be energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe originated from a singularity. Here the universe would start from non-zero energy (energy contained in singularity) and therefore it does not make any sense that the total energy of the universe would remain zero in this case also.

Endnote: For my other new articles please see my new website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com

Why there can be only One God

Recently one question was put to me by an atheist regarding the number of god or gods responsible for creating the universe: ‘You can’t even cite any rational criteria for determining how many gods are responsible. You use the word ‘God’ as if there is only one. What is your evidence that there is only one god?’

So what is my evidence that there is only one God?

I have already shown elsewhere^1,2 that if there is a creator of the universe, then that creator cannot be within any space and time, because logic dictates that a creator will always precede his/her creation. Before creation there was no space and time and therefore the creator god was not within any space and time. That means before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than the creator god, because before creation there was no space and time beyond the creator god within which someone or something might exist. Or, we can also say that before creation there was no one else, nothing else beyond the creator god.

Now instead of calling the creator of the universe as the creator god, we can also call him/her the cause of the universe. Or, in brief, we will call it The Cause. Thus The Cause would be such that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else other than The Cause.

Now let us suppose that there were two gods instead of one: god-A and god-B. Now can we say about god-A that before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than god-A? Can we say about god-B that before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than god-B? No, we cannot say so, because before creation there was already god-B beyond god-A and god-A beyond god-B.

But we have already seen above that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else beyond The Cause, because before creation there would be no space and time. So we see that neither god-A nor god-B fulfils the condition for being The Cause, because The Cause would have to be such that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else other than The Cause. So, either god-A is prior to god-B and is the cause of both god-B and the universe, or god-B is prior to god-A and is the cause of both god-A and the universe. But both of them combined cannot be the cause of the universe.

This clearly shows that there can be only one god, not many.

The whole matter can be analyzed from another angle. The situation before creation would have to be such that there would be no space and time before creation. But if there are two gods, then can we say that before creation there was no space and time? No, we cannot say so, because if there are two gods, then both of them would be within some space and time.

Here we cannot claim that god-A is not within any space and time, This is because if god-A is not really within any space and time, then beyond god–A there would be no space and time within which someone or something might exist and therefore there would be no one else, nothing else beyond god–A. But we already know that there was god-B beyond god-A. That means it cannot be said about god-A that it is not within any space and time.

By the same logic it can be shown that god-B is also within some space and time.

So, if there are more than one gods, then space and time would already be there. That will further mean that creation has already taken place. So, again we will have to say that either god-A is prior to god-B and is the cause of both god-B and the universe, or that god-B is prior to god-A and is the cause of both god-A and the universe. But both of them combined cannot be the cause of the universe.

However it must be mentioned here that it is very much possible that both of them together (an assembly of gods A and B)  are not within any space-time. But when we consider them individually and separately, both god-A and god-B would be within some space-time.

Reference:

1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/a-purely-logical-and-cold-blooded-concept-of-god/
2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/which-god/

End note: Please visit my website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com for my new articles.

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?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

God reveals himself to man in his own interest

A God who knows how to create a universe will also know how to keep a proof of his existence in the created world. And he will also know how to make his presence known to human individuals.

Now let us suppose that this God has created the universe but that he has failed to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. Neither has he ever revealed his presence to anybody. In such a case no one will ever know that there is such a God and man will believe in as many false gods and goddesses as possible as they have done in the early ages of human history.

Now let us suppose that God has created the universe but that while creating it he has totally forgotten to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. However God has regularly revealed himself to many human beings in all the ages of human history. These human individuals through their personal experience will come to know that there is such a God with such and such attributes and they will also know that all the other gods and goddesses that man has imagined so far are all false gods and goddesses only. In this way human society will slowly move from polytheism to monotheism.

But this situation is not an ideal situation at all, because this will ultimately lead to authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism. The ideal situation is the one where there will be both; there will be the personal experience of human individuals and at the same time there will be one or more proof/s of God’s existence in the created world.

From above I hope it becomes clear that if there is a God at all, then why that God will have to reveal himself to human beings from time to time, as otherwise they will never come to know that there is such a God and as in such a situation they will believe in false gods and goddesses only. At the same time if God does not want to breed authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism, then he will also have to keep a proof of his existence in the created world.

I think I have been able to make my point clear that if there is a God at all, then why it is possible for human beings to personally know there is a God, because in his own interest God will have to reveal himself to man from time to time.

I personally know there is a God. That is why I also know that scientists will never be able to explain everything of nature by natural means.

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

I think the biggest blunder science has committed is this: it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. Why? This is because when theists bring their God in the picture at all, they bring him in as the creator of the universe, not as a mere observer. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so God as the supposed creator of the universe is the creator of space, time, matter and energy. That means before creation by God there cannot be any space, time, matter and energy. That will further mean the creator God can never be in any space and time and neither can the creator God contain any matter or energy. That is why creator of the universe will always necessarily have to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial; it can never be otherwise. So once scientists have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they will no longer be able to convince us that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist. All their efforts will be futile and all their arguments against this creator God will fall on deaf ears only.

Is the Universe Immaterial?

We already know that the total energy of the universe is zero. We also know that matter and energy are equivalent. From these can we conclude that the total matter of the universe is also zero? Scientist Vector J Stenger thought so. Here is a quote:

‘E=mc² says matter and energy are the same entity. Since E=0, the total matter of the universe is zero. Zero does not have to come from anything.

‘Now, if by matter you just mean the equivalent of rest energy, then that came from gravitational energy during the expansion in the early universe.’

– Vic Stenger, having been asked for a simple explanation to the question, “where did all the matter come from?” to a letter to Cliff Walker (September 11, 2001).¹

But not everyone thinks so; there are other voices also. As per them it cannot be said that the total matter of the universe is zero simply because its total energy is zero. Actually matter in the universe counts for positive energy and gravity counts for negative energy. So when we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we arrive at a total energy of zero for the universe. But matter in itself has a non-zero value in the universe.

So I think the whole issue needs re-examination.

I think I have already made the point clear that the beginning of the universe will always mean that it will begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy.² Therefore the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should also always have to be zero, because nothing in the universe can come from outside. So, if the universe has a beginning, then its total matter will obviously be zero. This is as per logic.

Now we can also give scientific reason as to why the total matter of the universe will have to be zero.

How is the zero total energy of the universe arrived at? Here matter is treated as positive energy and gravity is treated as negative energy. When we add this positive energy of matter with the negative energy of gravity, we get zero total energy for the universe.

But energy cannot be directly deducted from matter. Neither can matter be directly deducted from energy. We will have to bring both of them into the same category before making any such addition or subtraction. We will have to convert either matter into energy or energy into matter. In the above case matter has been converted into energy and this energy is treated as positive energy. From this positive energy negative energy of gravity is subtracted.

Now instead of converting matter into energy, if we convert negative gravitational energy into matter, then we will get negative matter. If we now subtract this negative matter from the positive matter, then we will arrive at the total zero matter of the universe.

So both from the logical point of view as well as from the scientific point of view we can say that the total matter of the universe is zero.

Actually if we say that the total energy of the universe is zero and if matter and energy are also equivalent, then why can we not say that the total matter of the universe is also zero?

As the total matter of the universe is zero, so can we not say that the universe as a whole is immaterial?

Reference:

1. Positive atheism quotes of Victor J. Stenger, http://www.positiveatheism.org
2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/what-does-the-beginning-of-the-universe-actually-mean/