11Prompt - Scientists

A Falsehood spread about God

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 21 May 2025 12:42:01 +0000

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Footnote:
1. Translated from Bengali with the help of ChatGPT.

Our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:01:40 +0000

As theists frequently claim about God that he is outside space and time, so some atheists have mistakenly thought that this means God is outside the universe. As there is nothing outside the universe, so God does not exist.

But this is not true. Repeated observations of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement have compelled the scientists to come to the conclusion that at some deeper layer in the universe there is no space and time. That is why the connection between two entangled particles is established instantaneously, defying all the space-time separation between the two.

This shows that our universe is multi-layered. At its uppermost layer, there is spacetime; but at some deeper layer, there is no spacetime. The universe is spaceless and timeless at that layer.

So, if this spaceless and timeless God is to be there at all, then he need not have to be outside the universe. He can very easily accommodate himself within some deeper layer of this universe. That is why God is also called all-pervading.

So, our conclusion is this: our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer.

Can the universe come from nothing if space-time is emergent?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:38:14 +0000

Once scientists have come to the conclusion that space-time is not fundamental, but emergent, now many things will change in physics and cosmology. One such change is that cosmologists can no longer hold that the universe has originated from nothing.

This is because an entity that is emergent cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities only. Those scientists who are saying that the universe can and will create itself from nothing because its total energy is zero and because there is a force such as gravity, are also saying along with it that space-time can also originate from nothing. So, here they are claiming that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental because it had come straight from nothing, thus not requiring the prior presence of any particular entity/entities from which only it could emerge in case it was emergent.

But, whatever knowledge scientists have acquired so far about the external world is from the present universe only. From the present universe, scientists have acquired this knowledge about space-time that it is not fundamental. So, if they now claim that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental, then our questions to them will be these: From where have they acquired the knowledge that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental? Is it from the present universe? Or, is it from some supernatural source? Or, is it their intuition?

Have they themselves observed the universe directly coming from nothing? If not, then what is their source of knowledge that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental?

So, if they cannot give any evidence in support of their contention that at the beginning of the universe space-time was fundamental, then they have no justified reason to claim that the universe can originate from nothing because its total energy is zero.

As there is no evidence that space-time was fundamental at the beginning of the universe, so the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it was emergent at the beginning also. As emergent space-time can only emerge from something spaceless, timeless and immaterial, so from this we can conclude that the universe has also originated from something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

Again, if an entity is emergent, then it cannot be the case that it was fundamental at one stage and then became emergent at a later stage by losing its fundamental nature. If it is emergent now, then earlier also it was emergent and in future also it will remain emergent. That means space-time was emergent at the beginning of the universe as well. As emergent space-time can only emerge from something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, so we stick to our earlier conclusion that the universe has also originated from something that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

For the rest of the thing, we can wait

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 03 Mar 2019 06:05:01 +0000

In reply to my comment that God is spaceless and timeless an atheist has written that existence is a function of time and space. If at no place and no time does 'god' exist, then 'he' does not exist. If I disagree, then I should present evidence for 'god.'

In reply I have written to him this:

Whatever exists within the universe exists within the space and time of the universe. But within which space and time does the universe as a whole exist?

We know the universe is expanding. But when it is asked within which it is expanding, the reply we usually get from the cosmologists is that it is not expanding into anything, which means the universe as a whole is not embedded within any higher space and time. So the universe as a whole is not within any space and time. For that reason we do not say that the universe does not exist.

If the universe can exist not being within any space and time, then God can also exist not being within any space and time. So he cannot dismiss God solely on this reason. He will have to provide some other better reason.

But my reply does not convince him at all. He comments that I am unable to understand cosmology. Again he repeats the same argument that existence is a function of time and space, etc. He also writes that I have yet to demonstrate that anything can exist outside space and time.

So again I have replied to him that from his last two comments it appears that he knows nothing about the new development in modern physics. That is why he does not know that all his concepts and thoughts about space and time have become obsolete and back-dated.

Scientists working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying that space and time are not fundamental and that they have emerged from some non-spatiotemporal entity. Not only they, but string theorists, causal set theorists as well as scientists working with loop quantum gravity are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental.

Non-spatiotemporal is a new scientific term for the old term spaceless and timeless. Instead of saying spaceless and timeless these scientists are now saying non-spatiotemporal. But the meaning remains the same; there is something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature from which space and time have emerged.

Yes, it is true that they have not yet acknowledged that this non-spatiotemporal entity (NSE) is a conscious entity, yet it is also true that they have ultimately acknowledged that there is something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature. Thus all his objections about anything spaceless and timeless become null and void.

It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth, but to discover it. So, if there is a spaceless and timeless being, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now they have discovered that there is one spaceless and timeless entity in nature.

For the rest of the thing, we can wait.

This time he poses these questions to me:

1: Who said it's an entity?
2: Where is this timeless and spaceless being? I should show evidence for it.
He also states that I should provide some evidence for my claims.

So I again write to him that if he is fully convinced that he is in possession of truth, then he should be bold and courageous enough to face all those scientists who are now saying that space and time are not fundamental. So instead of posing these questions to me, he should directly pose them to those scientists. And he should also try to convince those errant scientists that they are all talking nonsense.

But he disagrees and says that he is just waiting for me to back my claims.

This time I reply to him that maybe he is lacking courage and conviction enough to directly confront those scientists, but that does not mean that his cowardice will be the determining factor as to why I will have to endorse his viewpoint here rather than that of the scientists.

I also inform him that whatever may be the circumstances, I will always prefer to go with the scientists and not with an ordinary atheist like him. And I will try to understand why they are saying such things now:

1) ...[T]he idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthric

2) Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."

- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

3) Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.
- Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011

4) Space (or spacetime) does not exist fundamentally: it emerges somehow from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. This intriguing claim appears in various approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.
- Composing the World Out of Nowhere

He replies that none of the above points to 'god.' Nor does it support my claims. Nor have I demonstrated that a 'god' could live there. Let alone does.

What follows is my final reply to him:

I thought that I would not make any further comment here, but his last comment compels me to change my decision.

I do not know whether he has heard the name of Richard Carrier. He is an atheist. He has written somewhere that from logical point of view there is no reason as to why someone or something cannot move with a speed greater than that of light, but it is physically impossible.

What does it mean? It means that by logic alone we cannot decide what is physically possible or not. For doing that we need experiment and observation.

Similarly we can say by logic alone we cannot decide what is physically real or not. Here also we need experiment and observation. Let me give one example:

‘Classical human reason, defined in terms of common sense notions following from our own myopic experience of reality is not sufficient to discern the workings of the Universe. If time begins at the big bang, then we will have to re-explore what we mean by causality, just as the fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time doing two different things at the same time as long as we are not measuring them is completely nonsensical, but true, and has required rethinking what we mean by particles.’
(This is from an article by scientist Lawrence Krauss that he wrote after a debate between him and William Lane Craig and posted by P.Z.Myers in his Freethoughtblogs Pharyngula, dated April 5, 2011.)

He is saying existence is a function of space and time. So, as per him for something to exist it must be within some space and time. But if he sticks to this principle up to the end, then he will find that he has been ultimately driven to an infinite regress.

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.

The multiverse exists within some super-multiverse.

The super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse.

The super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse.

The supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse.

In this way we will have to go on up to infinity, because we cannot stop anywhere.

Here everything will be within some space and time, but for that he will have to pay a heavy price; there will be an infinite regress.

If he wants to stop this infinite regress, then he will have to stop somewhere in the middle. Let us say we stop at level X; this X might be the universe, or the multiverse, or the super-multiverse, or the super-duper multiverse, or any assembly beyond or higher than the last one. Whatever might be this X, it will not be within any space and time, because beyond it there will be absolutely nothing. This X will be the ultimate reality and this ultimate reality will be spaceless and timeless.

So, here there are only two options:

i) In one case everything will be within some space and time, but there will also be an infinite regress;

ii) In the other case there will be no infinite regress, but here the ultimate reality will not be within any space and time.

An infinite regress is generally avoided, because a never-ending chain of causes cannot ultimately produce anything. However it is up to him what he will do.

Repeated observations of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement have compelled the scientists to come to the conclusion that at some deeper layer in the universe there is no space and time. That is why connection between two entangled particles is established instantaneously, defying all the space-time separation between the two. That is the reason as to why scientists are now saying just like the mystics that ‘space and time are illusions’ and that ‘the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time’.

He has written:

‘[A]nd none of that points to 'god.' Nor does it support my claims. Nor have I demonstrated that a 'god' could live there.

‘Let alone does.’

While writing this he has forgotten what I have written in one of my earlier comments:

‘It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth, but to discover it. So, if there is a spaceless and timeless being, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now they have discovered that there is one spaceless and timeless entity in nature.

‘For the rest of the thing, we can wait.’

So, this is our final message to the atheistic community in general all over the world:

If there is a spaceless and timeless God, then scientists will also discover it one day. This is because it is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. Up till now they have discovered that there is something non-spatiotemporal in nature from which space-time has emerged.

Scientists have been able to deliver this much up till now. For the rest of bags and baggage, we will wait.

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

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 04:30:02 +0000

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.

Which God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 05:34:45 +0000

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.

Thus both logic and science 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 atheists deny the existence of this spaceless and timeless God, then they will have to answer this question: if no one or nothing in this universe is spaceless and timeless, then why was it necessary for science to show as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless?

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:

http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/539

http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546

http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/555/600

The above tells us a lot about the mind-set of the atheists.

God Reveals Himself to Man in His Own Interest

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:27:24 +0000

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

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 22 Mar 2017 04:32:59 +0000

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

Is there any need for the Supernatural?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 09 Oct 2016 06:07:43 +0000

The difference between the atheists and the scientists is this: atheists can afford to be dogmatic or close-minded, but scientists cannot; their job or profession forbids them to be so. As scientists they have got some responsibility that the atheists do not have. As scientists they are supposed to provide explanation for all the events, phenomena or effects in nature and therefore they have to keep their mind open to the possibility that they may not always be able to explain everything purely naturally.

Scientist Victor J Stenger was an atheist, but like most of the atheists he was not close-minded. He did not completely rule out the possibility that there might be a God. In the year 2007 he published a book 'God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not exist'. In the introduction of that book he wrote the following:

"Indeed, the "God of the gaps" has long been a common argument for God. Science does not explain everything, so there is always room for other explanations and the believer is easily convinced that the explanation is God. however, the God of the gaps argument by itself fails, at least as a scientific argument, unless the phenomenon in question is not only currently scientifically inexplicable but can be shown to forever defy natural description. God can only show up by proving to be necessary, with science equally proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account of the phenomenon based on natural or material processes alone." (pp 13-14)1

So as per Stenger if there is one single phenomenon of nature for which science is proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account based on natural or material processes alone and which can be shown to forever defy natural description, then there, and there only, God can show up by proving to be necessary as an explanation.

Not only that. In the year 2009 British Scientist Edgar Andrews published a book 'Who Made God' in which he severely criticised the book "God: the Failed hypothesis" by Stenger (Chapter 5). In reply Stenger wrote the following:

"Anyone who has read any of my books knows I would never say that models detect anything. I simply say that God is not needed as part of any existing models but make clear that, if the evidence should require it, science should be required to include supernatural causes. If anything, Andrews should appreciate that, unlike most scientists, I allow for the possibility that we may not always be able to explain everything purely naturally. Currently we can, but I cannot predict the future."2

Here also we can see that he is not completely ruling out the possibility for the existence of the supernatural. This possibility can only be completely ruled out if, and only if, science can provide a natural explanation for each and every phenomenon of nature without any single exception.

There is one more scientist who like Victor J Stenger keeps his mind open to the possibility that as scientists one day they may also have the need of God as an explanation for some phenomenon of nature. Sean M Carroll is a theoretical physicist; to the outer world he is known to be an atheist. But despite that in November 1, 2010 he wrote an article (Is Dark Matter Supernatural?) that clearly shows his open-mindedness regarding this. Here is a relevant quote from that article:

“There is a perfectly good question of whether science could ever conclude that the best explanation was one that involved fundamentally lawless behavior. The data in favor of such a conclusion would have to be extremely compelling… but I don’t see why it couldn’t happen. Science is very pragmatic, as the origin of quantum mechanics vividly demonstrates. Over the course of a couple decades, physicists (as a community) were willing to give up on extremely cherished ideas of the clockwork predictability inherent in the Newtonian universe, and agree on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. That’s what fit the data. Similarly, if the best explanation scientists could come up with for some set of observations necessarily involved a lawless supernatural component, that’s what they would do. There would inevitably be some latter-day curmudgeonly Einstein figure who refused to believe that God ignored the rules of his own game of dice, but the debate would hinge on what provided the best explanation, not a priori claims about what is and is not science.”3

From above we can see that the question as to whether there is any supernatural or not is purely a practical one. If scientists fail to provide a suitable explanation for certain phenomenon of nature by every natural means, then they are ready to go for the supernatural. Atheists do not have to face such crisis in their life, so they can very easily be close-minded.

Reference:
1. http://skepdic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bog-neydachnaia-gipoteza.pdf
2. http://whomadegod.org/2011/06/victor-stenger-replies-to-who-made-god/
3. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/11/01/is-dark-matt...

11Prompt - Scientists

A Falsehood spread about God

Tags:

Our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer

Tags:

Can the universe come from nothing if space-time is emergent?

Tags:

For the rest of the thing, we can wait

Tags:

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

Tags:

Which God?

Tags:

God Reveals Himself to Man in His Own Interest

Tags:

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

Tags:

Is there any need for the Supernatural?

Tags: