11Prompt
en
When Can Science Say It Doesn't Need God?
/?q=node/607
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In a post on a Facebook discussion forum, a commenter wrote: "All I know is that there is no place for God in any scientific theory." The response I gave him is provided here:</p>
<p>“You know this much, but you do not know the whole story. Scientists do not pay much attention to philosophers, but they highly respect one philosopher, and that philosopher is Hume. He stated that we cannot leap to the conclusion, based on a limited number of past observations, that what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future. No matter how many times we have seen 'A' happen in the past, we have always seen 'B' follow immediately after 'A'. From this, we cannot draw the conclusion that every time we see 'A' happen in the future, we will see 'B' follow 'A'. In the future, it could very well happen that 'A' is observed, but 'B' does not follow 'A'.</p>
<p>“You wrote that there is no place for God in any scientific theory. It is true that, until now, science has not needed God. However, you cannot use your current knowledge to prophesy that science will never need God in the future. You are not an astrologer or a fortune-teller that you can make such a prediction—or that even if you do make a prediction, it will turn out to be completely accurate.</p>
<p>“Only if science can one day explain everything from the origin of the universe to everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen in this universe, without bringing in an imaginary God, can science confidently claim that it has no need for God.</p>
<p>“However, if it is ultimately found that there remains a gap somewhere in the scientific explanation, and despite thousands of years of effort, that gap cannot be filled by any scientific explanation, then questions will begin to arise about whether what science has assumed as an axiom until now is actually true. Science assumes that it does not need to go outside of nature to explain the world. That very assumption of science will then be called into question.</p>
<p>“German scientist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote in one of her blog posts that it might take one thousand years to get answers to all of science's questions. It would be wise to wait until then.”</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/347" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hume</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/328" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Sabine Hossenfelder</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/348" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Scientific explanation</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/133" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Origin of the Universe</a></li></ul></div>
Sat, 20 Jun 2026 18:16:40 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
607 at
/?q=node/607#comments
Scientists have failed to invalidate believers' claim
/?q=node/606
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Scientists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal. The word non-spatiotemporal is the adjective form of no spacetime. That means as per scientists the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime. As nothing can exist without spacetime, so the source from which spacetime has emerged can be called the source of all existence. And this source of all existence is not within any spacetime.</p>
<p>Believers say that God is spaceless and timeless and that this God is the source of all existence. So, as per the believers, the source of all existence is not within any space and time. </p>
<p>So, both believers and non-believers are saying the same thing that the source of all existence cannot lie within any spacetime. </p>
<p>Now, somebody may argue that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ and ‘spaceless and timeless’ are two separate terms and that they do not indicate the same thing. But this argument will be a bad argument. Because although scientists are using the terms spacetime and non-spatiotemporal, yet in practice they are treating space and time as two separate entities. They are also using two different symbols for these two entities space and time. </p>
<p>So, it is quite immaterial as to whether we say that the source of all existence is not within any spacetime, or that it is not within any space and time. </p>
<p>Therefore, from all this above we can conclude that scientists have failed to invalidate the believers’ claim that the source of all existence cannot lie within any spacetime.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/259" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spacetime</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/269" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Non-spatiotemporal</a></li></ul></div>
Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:27:29 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
606 at
/?q=node/606#comments
Is God omnipotent and omniscient?
/?q=node/605
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>I made a post like this on my Facebook page: "There is a creator of this universe—from this, can we conclude that the creator is omniscient and omnipotent?" </p>
<p>In the comment section of that post, a Facebook friend wrote that if I had faith in the Upanishads, I would say that the creator of the world is omnipresent. There is no point in His created world where He is not present! He exists, or His influence is active, at every point in spacetime. </p>
<p>I wrote back to him: "I made this post because atheists usually assume God to be omniscient and omnipotent and then try to demonstrate what logical fallacies arise if God possesses these two attributes. By pointing out these fallacies, they arrive at the conclusion that the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God is practically impossible. There is a huge loophole in this logic, which I hadn't been able to catch all this time. Today, I suddenly did. So, this can be considered a true breakthrough. </p>
<p>“Let me explain the whole thing a bit. We know a world exists. Those of us who believe in the existence of God say that this world has a creator. However, from the premise that 'this world has a creator,' one cannot conclude that the creator is omniscient and omnipotent. The creator of the world must definitely possess as much knowledge and power as is required to create a world. But that does not mean the creator has to be omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, by incorrectly assuming the world-creator to be omniscient and omnipotent, and then showing all the logical fallacies that those concepts give rise to, one cannot claim that God does not exist. Yet, atheists have been doing exactly this for a long time. </p>
<p>“Of course, the entire blame for this cannot be placed on the atheists. If blame must be placed on anyone, it should be placed on those who attributed these 'Omni-characteristics' to God in the first place.”</p>
<p>Then the Facebook friend replied that he has understood. My logic is correct. He has heard this kind of talk from atheists before. Then he gave an example: If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it! He then mentioned that his previous comment, however, spoke of Omnipresence, not Omnipotency. </p>
<p>I wrote back to him: "In India, Brahman is described as *Nirguna* (without attributes) and *Nirupadhika* (without qualifications). No attribute, no qualification can be imposed on Brahman. Yet, in the religions originating from the Middle East, attributes and characteristics were imposed on God one after another. And incidentally, modern science was born in a part of the world where all the influence and dominance belonged to a religion originating from the Middle East. Therefore, it became very convenient for atheists to use modern science to shatter the core narrative of that religion into pieces." </p>
<p>I then again commented: “Atheists do not talk much about omnipresence; the main targets of their attack are God's omniscience and omnipotence.”</p>
<p>Later, I made another post on my Facebook page: "All the criticisms atheists have made against God to date, by assuming God to be omniscient and omnipotent, have become hollow from today onward."</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/346" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Brahman</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/155" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Omnipotent</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/156" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Omniscient</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/181" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Omnipresent</a></li></ul></div>
Fri, 05 Jun 2026 05:45:44 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
605 at
/?q=node/605#comments
A Falsehood spread about God
/?q=node/604
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>For many years, scientists have been propagating a falsehood about God. That falsehood is as follows: "The God-hypothesis does not predict anything that can be tested," or "The God-hypothesis does not have any observational consequences."</p>
<p>But I showed back in 2001 that this is entirely false. I demonstrated that the God-hypothesis can predict something that has been tested and verified. I showed that if, at the very beginning of the universe, there existed a spaceless and timeless entity (God has always been described this way), then due to the presence of such a spaceless and timeless being, the values of space and time must necessarily be relative — and science has indeed shown that the values of space and time are relative.</p>
<p>Because God is spaceless and timeless, the values of space and time in relation to God are absolutely zero. But in all other cases, the values of space and time are non-zero. Therefore, the values of space and time must be relative.</p>
<p>However, this cannot be considered definitive proof of God's existence, because God's consciousness cannot be proven in this way. Even if, instead of God, there existed a spaceless and timeless unconscious entity, the values of space and time would still be relative.</p>
<p>Scientists who are working on quantum gravity are now saying that space and time cannot be fundamental — they are emergent. If scientists ultimately conclude that space-time is emergent, it would mean that the source from which space-time emerged cannot itself be located within space-time, since space-time did not exist before its own emergence.</p>
<p>And since nothing can exist without space-time, the source from which space-time originated can be identified as the root of all existence — and that source must be spaceless and timeless. Although scientists are not calling it "spaceless and timeless"; instead, they are calling it non-spatiotemporal.</p>
<p>If scientists continue down the path they are currently on, they will eventually arrive not at a spaceless and timeless conscious being at the beginning of the universe, but rather at a non-spatiotemporal unconscious entity.</p>
<p>However, I showed as early as 2012 that such an unconscious entity must possess consciousness — otherwise, the spacelessness and timelessness of light cannot be explained in any way.</p>
<p>So there's no need for atheists to worry about proving God's existence. They can simply go on spreading the same falsehood — that "God-hypothesis does not predict anything."1</p>
<p>Footnote:<br />
1. Translated from Bengali with the help of ChatGPT.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/161" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Scientists</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/345" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ChatGPT</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/109" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Spacelessness</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/110" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Timelessness</a></li></ul></div>
Wed, 21 May 2025 12:42:01 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
604 at
/?q=node/604#comments
Did the universe originate from nothing?
/?q=node/603
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In 2010, scientist Lawrence M. Krauss wrote an article1 in the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that since the total amount of energy in our current universe is zero, it follows that the universe originated from nothing. The gist of his argument was this: Let us assume that the universe actually arose from nothing. (Here it is the so-called nothing of scientists, not the nothing of philosophers.) Then the total energy of the universe must be zero, because everything here started from nothing. Amazingly, scientists have also found that the total energy in the present universe is zero. So it is natural to say that the universe actually originated from nothing, because only then would its total energy be expected to be zero. </p>
<p>But by applying the same argument that Krauss uses for showing that the universe originated from nothing, it can be shown that the universe could not have originated from nothing. His argument was this: If the universe had originated from nothing, then the total energy of the universe would be zero. And the total energy of the universe is also zero. But if the total energy of the universe is zero because of the fact that the universe had originated from nothing, then the total amount of space-time of the universe will also be zero because of the same fact that the universe had originated from nothing, But have scientists been able to show that the total amount of space-time in the universe is zero? If they can't show it, then they can't claim that the universe had originated from nothing.</p>
<p>Reference:<br />
1. <a href=";
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/344" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Lawrence M. Krauss</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/113" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Universe</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/114" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">nothing</a></li></ul></div>
Thu, 19 Dec 2024 15:23:26 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
603 at
/?q=node/603#comments
On Reincarnation
/?q=node/602
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>A few years back I wrote some articles whose title was this: My encounter with God. In one of those articles I wrote the following which was mainly about my paranormal experiences:</p>
<p>Did I hope that these paranormal phenomena would help me prove the existence of God? Yes, I did. This is because I myself possessed, and still posses, one paranormal ability. If “somewhere in this world somebody is going to die”, then I will have a premonition of his/her death days before, and sometimes in one or two rare occasions, even months before, the occurrence of such death. I cannot exactly say who is going to die, but I can with absolute certainty say that very soon I am going to receive the death-news of someone with whom I even may not have any blood-relation at all. Here there are three circles within which such deaths can occur: 1) Family circle, 2) friends circle and 3) last but not the least, the celebrity circle. These celebrities may be local, regional, national, or even international. The only criterion that is applicable in each case here is that the death-news of the person must have to reach me somehow. Now I must explain how I come to know beforehand that “somewhere in this world somebody is going to die”. There are some common symptoms. One such symptom is that suddenly my mood will become off. I will lose all the positive meanings of life. I will lose interest in everything. Everything of this life will seem to me an illusion, a Maya. Whatever I do at present, whatever I propose to do in future, appear to me as nothing but vanity. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”. When this mood comes heavily on me, I become dead sure that somewhere on earth somebody is going to draw his/her last breath very soon. Then one day again everything will become normal, and I will again find that life is worth living. And I will then get the news of someone’s death either through the newspaper, or maybe over phone, or by some other means, depending on within which circle such death has actually occurred. Another common symptom is that during those days my throat will be choked. It will become extremely difficult for me to utter even a single word. I will feel in those days that if I try to talk to someone, then I will definitely begin to cry. So when it becomes urgently necessary to talk to others, I have to suppress this propensity to cry with some tremendous effort and then only I can speak out. And this constant urge to weep will always be there. I will not understand why I am so prone to weeping. But when I will get the death-news of someone, everything will be clear to me. </p>
<p>Then there is another symptom, the most mysterious of the three. I will feel as if I have been transported somehow in another time, in another century that has long been lost. This time is not the present time, but another time of some bygone century, long, long ago lost from the surface of the earth. The people that I am seeing around me are also not of this present world, but they are all from that lost world. The road I am trotting is also of that lost world. I will feel as if I am in a world that was here on earth many, many centuries ago, but that has gone forever. Thus there will be a veil of unreality over everything surrounding me. When I will have this feeling, I will again know with certainty that “somewhere in this world somebody is going to die”. Although in the first two cases the suffering I have to go through is simply unbearable, still I must have to confess here that when I do have this particular type of experience, I relish it very much. This is because if one can see this present world as an already lost world of some bygone century, then nothing can be more mysterious than that. Physicists may not agree here, but I think this experience is equivalent to some sort of time-travel, because I am seeing this present century as a bygone century. As if my consciousness has somehow gone many centuries ahead of time, and from there it is seeing this present century retrospectively as a long-lost century. If this is not time-travel, then what is time-travel? During such an experience my wife appeared to me so distant in time that it seemed as if she was from some pre-historic period. So I was seeing a woman of some pre-historic age just in front of me! Although it was only an appearance, because it could not be real in any way, still her whole bodily appearance as a woman of some pre-historic century seemed very much real to me.</p>
<p>2<br />
But several times it happened that none of these three signs were met, but some death occurred somewhere in this world. What happened in all those cases was this: several times I felt as if I was going to die, but in the end it turned out that I had not died at all, but someone else had died somewhere else. That is, in all these cases my feeling that I was going to die was an indication of someone else's death somewhere else. This feeling that I was about to die, was once so intense that at that time I was filled with lamentation at the thought of my impending death. At that time I was so sure of my death that I was deeply broken inside thinking what would be the helpless condition of my wife and daughter after my death. My wife is sick, and my daughter is still immature, and she hasn't finished her college yet. How will my wife manage the family with her sick body, how will she do the daily marketing or solve other problems of the family, and how will she raise her daughter? I can still well remember how I lamented that I could not fulfill the minimum duty of establishing my daughter in life before my death, before I had to leave this world, leaving both of them quite helpless. After spending three days in lamentation in this way, finally on the fourth day I was shown a vision. That day was Monday, the time would be a little before or after 12 noon. I was going north from the southern room of the ground floor, and had just advanced a foot or two into the middle room, when I saw the scene before my eyes. A human vagina floated in the air in front of me, and what I saw with my naked eyes was this: something whitish was moving from my forehead towards that vagina. This incident happened in the year 2009.</p>
<p>After this terrible experience, I spent several days in a state of obsession, I was in a daze for those few days. Then one day after the rush passed, I was going somewhere by bus. On the bus, I was thinking what God is trying to tell me by showing me this scene? Does God mean that after death man re-enters the mother's womb? Is she reborn again? However, a case-by-case analysis leads to the same conclusion. That is why for the first few days I had a strong feeling that I was about to die. During these few days I never for a moment doubted that I might not die, I was so sure of my death. Then I was shown entering the mother's womb. All this means only one thing: after death, man re-enters the mother's womb, is reborn. That is, by giving this experience, God gave me the message that there is rebirth. </p>
<p>3<br />
Case 1: Here is an incident from my daughter's childhood. My daughter started going to school when she was only 2 years and 11 months old. This incident happened before she started going to school. One day suddenly it appeared that she started speaking in a completely unknown foreign language. After speaking in an unknown language for some time in this way she would sometimes stop on her own, then start again the next day. It went on like this for a long time. Her fluency in this unknown foreign language started as suddenly as one day, and stopped suddenly one day. I couldn't understand a single word of what she was saying, nor did anyone else in the house seem to. I was once a member of a film club, and because of that I have seen films from many countries around the world, I have heard the languages of many countries by ear. Based on that experience I can say that the language my daughter spoke at that time was not an Indian language; neither was it Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, or Urdu; neither was it English, French, German, or Italian; most likely it was Spanish or Portuguese. But there's no way to say for sure, since I never once tried to record her words on tape in that unknown language. When my daughter was only a few months old, I recorded her crying on tape, but I don't know why the thought of recording her words in this unknown foreign language never once crossed my mind. But now I realize what a fatal mistake I have made, for I have thereby lost a great evidence of reincarnation, perhaps forever. If the words she uttered at that time were caught on tape, later attempts could be made to find out what language it was, whether the words she uttered had any meaning at all, and if indeed they had any meaning at all, was it really possible for her to know that language at that age, and if it was really impossible, how could she speak it so fluently? But by not having her words on tape, I missed out of all this forever, and what's the point in wailing like a fool now? It was impossible for my daughter to speak another language at that age, and it was even more impossible to speak that language continuously, because how was it possible for her to know another language at that age? The only possible explanation for this phenomenon is that maybe for a few days she regained the memories of her previous birth, during which time she spoke the language of her previous birth. But as soon as that memory was lost, her speaking in that unknown language suddenly stopped one day. </p>
<p>Case 2: Another such case came to my knowledge from the son of my borther-in-law. His only son spoke only in Hindi from the time he learned to speak until he was two-and-a-half years old and could not be fed anything but dal and roti till that age of two-and-a-half years. The elders used to say among themselves that the boy must have been a Bihari (a resident of Bihar Province of India) in his previous birth, hence his speaking in Hindi and eating dal and roti. Later, however, both his habits gradually changed, he learned to speak Bengali and got used to Bengali food. But even here, no evidence can be adduced that he spoke Hindi and not Bengali, because no one ever thought of recording any samples of his speaking in Hindi. </p>
<p>Of course, there is no reason to be so upset now that one or two pieces of evidence have been missed, because the future parents are there. My advice to them: If you find that your children when first learning to speak are speaking in a language that doesn't sound like any language you know, then without delay, arrange to capture their words on an Android phone first. Now that Android phones are almost in every household, there should be no difficulty in making audio-video recording. But make not one, but several audio-videos like that. Later, it will be examined whether the words they have uttered have any meaning or not. And that is how we must collect evidence of reincarnation, because without evidence atheists cannot be convinced of anything. Millions of babies are born in this world almost every day. The world's population is growing at a rate of nearly twenty million every year. So if a period of 100 years is considered, then in these 100 years, about two billion newborn babies will appear worldwide. If it is possible to observe a million children out of these two billion children in the next 100 years, and if these observations give us several thousand instances in which the child is seen speaking a language other than her mother tongue, then in the future the phenomenon of reincarnation could be established on a solid foundation. It would not be a difficult task at all. And when God has given me indication that there is rebirth, then there is definitely rebirth. Now all we have to do is gather evidence for reincarnation. And the way to collect this evidence can surely be understood from Case 1 and Case 2 described above. If a Bengali child is reincarnated after her death and born in a Bengali household, then she will speak Bengali after learning to speak in her childhood and there will be no indication that she has been reincarnated and born again in a Bengali household. But if a non-Bengali or a non-Indian is reincarnated in a Bengali household after her death, and if she is seen in her childhood speaking a language which does not sound like Bengali at all, then that can certainly be regarded as a proof of reincarnation. Finding a person who can remember the incidents of her previous birth may not be so easy, but I think the examples described in Case 1 and Case 2 can be found if properly searched. New babies are and will be appearing in the world every day. So we have plenty of time and opportunity to gather evidence for reincarnation.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/341" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Reincarnation</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/342" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Speaking in an unknown language</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/343" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Life after death</a></li></ul></div>
Mon, 02 Sep 2024 11:32:45 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
602 at
/?q=node/602#comments
The One
/?q=node/601
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The two theories of special and general relativity clearly show the relationship between space, time, energy, and matter. Special relativity has shown that energy and matter are equivalent; energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy. Again, general relativity shows that space, time, and matter are so interrelated that there cannot be any space-time without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without soace-time. </p>
<p>Since there cannot be any space-time without matter, and since there can neither be any matter without soace-time, therefore it can be asserted that space-time and matter have originated from one single source only. If the source of space-time and the source of matter were different, then there could not be such an interrelation between space-time and matter. Again, since energy and matter are identical, therefore we can assert that space, time, energy, and matter have originated from one single source only. </p>
<p>This interrelation between space-time and matter shows us that at the root of all things is the One, and that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, though space, time, energy, and matter have originated from that One only. If that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, then what is that One? It is not possible for anyone to say anything about that One, which is why Indian philosophy has only said neti, neti about that One; it is not this, it is not that, etc.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/116" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Special theory of relativity</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/117" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">General theory of relativity</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/53" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/54" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/118" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Matter</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-5" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/104" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Energy</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-6" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/340" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">The One</a></li></ul></div>
Sun, 11 Aug 2024 07:14:29 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
601 at
/?q=node/601#comments
A nightmare and an accident
/?q=node/600
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>On 16th April 2024, Tuesday, a Bengali newspaper from Kolkata published some excerpts from an interview with Salman Rushdie that he gave to a British TV channel. Here are some quotes from there: </p>
<p>Rushdie said that he had a nightmare a few days before the event that took place at a university in New York. He saw someone attacking him. He stated, when I woke up the next day, my first thought was: I will inform the entrepreneurs that I will not be able to participate in the event. But then I also thought that since 1989, the fatwa was hanging over my head. So, such dreams are not unusual. I went to that event thinking about those who bought tickets and came to listen to me. </p>
<p>8th February 2014 was a Saturday. That evening, my wife was changing her clothes in a room before offering her evening prayer, a daily ritual in a Hindu family. In that situation, she fell on the dry floor of that room and broke the bones of her left arm and left leg. Several days before this accident, I had a very disturbing nightmare for several nights in a row in my sleep, as if something unusual was going to happen. After an operation, the broken limbs of my wife were back to normal, but she did not live long after the accident. She died in the early morning of 16th October of that year. </p>
<p>Salman Rushdie is a serious non-believer, an atheist. But if he had taken his nightmare a little more seriously, he might have avoided this surprise attack on him. </p>
<p>In that interview, Rushdie states that since 1989, a fatwa has been hanging over his head. So, it is not unusual to have such a dream like this. As per him, such dreams are not unusual. But here our question will be: has he seen such a dream many times before? If yes, it is usual to see the same dream this time also. But if it is the case that he had never seen such a dream on any earlier occasion, but only this time for the first time, then he must have thought: why did he see it this time? In that case, he should have been more careful and could also have warned the entrepreneurs so that they could prevent any attempted attack on him at the very beginning. It was due to his taking the nightmare so lightly that such a big attack on his life could take place at all and here we have some lessons to learn from this incident in his life. </p>
<p>It could also be the case that he thought that if his nightmares were made public, then he would be laughed at all over the world. He who all through his life had been up in arms against all sorts of primitive superstitions and blind faith of people was frightened by one slight nightmare! That is why he kept the whole thing under wraps, and the entrepreneurs could not provide any extra security for him. In the future, before we start satirizing people's superstitions, we must remember that he lost his right eye and became completely numb on his right side simply because he could not disclose his nightmares to anybody for fear of public ridicule. </p>
<p>I conclude with this: Not all superstitions are superstitions. Rushdie took his nightmare very lightly. Its consequences are now known to all.</p>
<p>Addendum: Rushdie was once threatened with death. At that time, he was forced to live under very tight security for many years. His wife could not stay in such tight security and finally left him panting. After seeing the nightmare, didn't he remember those horrible days of his life even once? So why did he take the nightmare so lightly? He could have told the undertakers that he had had a nightmare, but he would go anyway, only that there would have to be tighter security for him. But he didn't tell the entrepreneurs anything; maybe he thought that once the matter became known, everybody would start making fun of him. That, in the end, he was also afraid of a little ill omen like superstitious people! </p>
<p>Alas, man! How much do you know about this world and life? Based on what you have known, you think you know everything. So, there is no end to your pride. One day you will have to pay the price of this pride.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/336" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Salman Rushdie</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/337" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Nightmares</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/338" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Death Threat</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/339" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Human Superstitions</a></li></ul></div>
Sun, 28 Apr 2024 05:47:49 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
600 at
/?q=node/600#comments
All We Need to Know about Quantum Entanglement
/?q=node/599
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Almost all physicists who work on quantum gravity state that space-time is emergent, not fundamental. If space-time is emergent, what does it mean? Since space-time could not exist before the emergence of space-time, the emergence of space-time means that there is another layer in the universe below the layer of space-time where there is no space-time, and from which layer space-time has emerged. If two points are in the layer of the universe where space-time is real, there will be some distance between those two points. That distance can be one light-year, that distance can be 1 billion light-years, and again be 93 billion light-years if the two points are at the two ends of the universe. But in the layer of the universe where there is no space-time, the distance between those two points will be zero in all three cases because there is no space-time at that layer. When two quantum particles are entangled, if their position after entanglement is in a layer of the universe where there is no space-time, no matter how far the two particles are from each other, the distance between them will always be zero. In this situation, why should we be surprised if an observation made on one entangled particle will affect the other particle instantaneously?</p>
<p>However, we can draw two conclusions from the claim that space-time is emergent. I have drawn one so far, but not the other one. The conclusion is that if space-time is emergent, then space-time was also emergent at the time of the beginning/birth of the universe. Scientists cannot say that space-time was fundamental at that time and that space-time has somehow become emergent at some point later. If scientists admit that space-time was emergent at the beginning/birth of the universe, they must say that the layer from which space-time emerged was also present before the beginning/birth of the universe. Otherwise, where did space and time come from when the universe was born? And if scientists can't admit that, then let them stop saying that space-time is emergent; they should say that space-time is fundamental.</p>
<p>Now, we can come to what Einstein stated about his theory of general relativity: If we solve the equations of GR without energy and matter, then flat space-time would obtain, and special relativity would govern that flat space-time. So, according to him, this world was eternal, but there was a time when there was no energy and matter, and then the world was flat. I have used the word world here but not the word universe. However, Einstein forgot to mention one thing here. His GR had shown that space-time could not exist without matter. That is, what Einstein said about his theory of general relativity can be expressed as follows: before the appearance of energy and matter, that is, before the beginning/birth of the universe, there was always a world, that world was flat, and in that flat world there was no space, no time, no energy, and no matter. I would request the readers to consider whether they can find any similarity between the conclusion drawn from what Einstein said about GR and the one drawn from the statement that space-time is emergent.</p>
<p>Now, we can talk about quantum entanglement. The picture that emerges from all the experiments on quantum entanglement is this: there is no such thing as space-time in one layer of the universe. As long as two quantum particles remain entangled, no matter how distant they are from each other, the distance between them will still be zero. That is because an observation made on one particle will immediately affect the other.</p>
<p>Now, if we put these three together and come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as space-time in one layer of the universe and that this layer where there is no space-time was present before the beginning/birth of the universe, is still present, and will be present in the future as well, then will it be very absurd? And if there is such a layer in the universe where distance and time have no meaning at all, then it is natural that phenomena like quantum entanglement should be a common occurrence there. So, there is no reason for us to be surprised by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, and there is no reason for scientists to worry about being unable to explain that phenomenon. So, what is the use of all those sayings that there is spooky action at a distance, or that quantum entanglement violates special relativity, or that the wave function exists in reality when we can provide a simple explanation of it based merely on the fact that space-time is emergent? </p>
<p>All we need now is a scientist who, with great courage and despite all the cynicism of all the scientists on earth, can forcefully demand that we should draw the conclusion that emergent space-time is forcing us to and admit that a non-spatiotemporal layer predates the beginning/birth of the universe from which space-time emerged at the time of the beginning/birth of the universe, and which layer still exists, as evidenced by all the experiments on quantum entanglement.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/168" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Einstein</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/113" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Universe</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/115" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">space-time</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/269" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Non-spatiotemporal</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/172" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Quantum Entanglement</a></li></ul></div>
Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:36:10 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
599 at
/?q=node/599#comments
Natural-Supernatural
/?q=node/598
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Thanks to scientists we now know that massless particles have some strange properties. Time stops completely in the case of massless particles, and massless particles do not have to travel any distance at all, as all distances in their case shrink to zero. For example, for massless particles the distance from one end of the universe to its other end is zero. So massless particles can be present at both ends of the universe at the same time. What are these properties of massless particles to be called? Are they to be called natural characteristics, or supernatural characteristics? If these are called natural features, a problem of some sorts will arise; Again, if these are called supernatural properties, then another kind of problem will arise. </p>
<p> We all know that God is said to be timeless; It is also said about him that he can be present at both ends of the universe at the same time due to his omnipresence. God is also said to be a supernatural being. So it turns out that it has been said about a supernatural entity called God that it has just the same properties as those of massless particles. If God exists (here I am not saying that God exists, I am saying if God exists), and if we call these properties of massless particles natural properties, then the question that will naturally arise will be: how can a supernatural being have any natural properties? Supernatural beings are supposed to have supernatural characteristics only, how can supernatural beings have natural characteristics? Again, if we call these properties of massless particles supernatural properties, then this time the question will be: as science is supposed to deal with the natural world only, then how is it that science has also begun to deal with the supernatural as well? </p>
<p> How can this problem be solved? It can be solved in this way: If God exists, then rather than calling him a supernatural being, it is better to acknowledge that God is also a part and parcel of this vast universe, and that he is not an entity outside of this universe, which is why natural science has a scientific explanation for his properties.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Tags: </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/123" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">God</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-1" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/333" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Omnipresence</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-2" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/334" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Massless Particles</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-3" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/158" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Natural</a></li><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-4" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/?q=taxonomy/term/159" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supernatural</a></li></ul></div>
Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:17:48 +0000
Himangsu Sekhar Pal
598 at
/?q=node/598#comments