11Prompt - Unborn

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:45:04 +0000

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

1) If science can show that this universe does not need any God; and
2) If science can show that God of the theistic description cannot exist.

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

However it has already been shown here1 and here2 that the origin of the universe has not been explained properly by the scientists.

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

Regarding 2) it may be asked: which God? This is because there are thousands of religions on earth and each religion has its own concept of God. I have already made this point clear here3.

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

So in order to show that this God with the above attributes cannot exist, I think it will be sufficient for the scientists if they can somehow show that no one or nothing in this universe can be spaceless and timeless. This is because in that case it can very easily be argued that this God does not exist, because this God is said to be spaceless and timeless whereas science has shown that no one or nothing can be spaceless and timeless. But here science has done just the opposite to what it was supposed to do; it has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. That means here also science has failed in its endeavour to show that God of the theistic description cannot exist. Here their failure has a much deeper negative impact on us than their failure in the first case, because once they have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, now it becomes next to impossible for them to convince us anymore that this spaceless and timeless God cannot exist.

Due to the above two reasons I am not yet convinced that there is no God. Scientists have failed to convince me that God does not exist.

Reference:
1. 3.

Irony of Modern Science

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:09:41 +0000

About the God who was never there it has been said that he/she/it is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the God who was never there it has also has been said that he/she/it is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

About the God who was never there we say that he/she/it is spaceless. Here science was having two options: 1) it could have shown that nothing could be spaceless; 2) or, it could have shown how it is possible to be spaceless. Nobody has forced the scientists to choose the second option, but despite that they have shown on their own initiative how it is possible to be spaceless.

About the God who was never there we also say that he/she/it is timeless. Here also science was having two options and here also not being forced by anybody they have shown on their own initiative how it is possible to be timeless.

Now what would have happened if science had shown that nothing in this universe could be spaceless and timeless? In that case it would have been much more easier to show that God does not exist simply because this God is spaceless and timeless and because science has already shown that nothing can be spaceless and timeless.

As we can now show with the help of science how God can be spaceless and timeless, so we can also very easily show how this God is changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. This is because all these attributes are the default attributes of someone or something that is spaceless and timeless.

So, although this God was never there and although modern science also equally denies the existence of God, yet with the help of one of the modern scientific theories (SR) we can fully, completely, excellently explain this God. Is it not really funny?

All this has been possible simply because this God was never there.

Problem with an Eternal Universe

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 04 Jun 2016 05:36:54 +0000

Some scientists are now saying that the universe is eternal, that it has always existed even before the big bang. Universe in its present form is only 13.8 billion years old, but before that it has existed in some other form. But before the big bang there was no space and no time, because space and time came into existence along with the big bang only. So if the universe was always there even before the big bang, then it was neither in space nor in time, because before the big bang there was no space and no time. Being neither in space nor in time it will thus be spaceless and timeless. It can be shown by simple logic that being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. It will be immaterial because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that either all the three of them will be there together, or none of then will be there. But this is the traditional description of God. So are these scientists subscribing to God?

The only way to come out of this mess is to say that if the universe has always existed even before the big bang, then space and time were also there before the big bang.

The Whole is unborn, uncreated, without a beginning and without an end.

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 02:12:12 +0000

Summary: The Whole, by virtue of its being The Whole, or by default, is changeless. An entity, here The Whole, for which no change can ever occur, cannot be created; it is uncreated. Similarly an entity, for which no change can ever occur, is unborn, without a beginning and without an end.

The Whole is unborn, uncreated, without any beginning and without any end

The Whole (TW) as per definition is that entity outside of which there cannot be anything: no space, no time, no matter, simply nothing. Whatever will be there at all will be within The Whole. If there is anything outside TW, then it will no longer be TW. Rather the entity that will contain both the so-called TW and the thing lying outside of that so-called TW will be the new TW. So by definition there can never be anything outside The Whole.

TW being placed neither in space nor in time cannot change at all. Change can occur either in space or in time. So TW cannot change, because it is placed neither in space nor in time. Being not in space we cannot say about this TW that it was 'there' before, and that it is 'here' now. Being not in time we cannot say about this TW that it was 'this' before, and that it has become 'that' after, in both these cases it remaining at the same point of space. So there can never be any question of change for TW.

Now it can be shown that an entity which cannot change at all will also be unborn and uncreated. An entity that is created comes into existence from non-existence, and so, for it once there was a change, and thus it is not changeless. So an entity, for which no change can ever occur, can never be created. It will be uncreated.

Similarly it can be shown that an entity, for which no change can ever occur, was never born, because being born means coming into being from non-being. This is also a change. So an entity, for which no change can ever occur, will also be unborn.

It can also be shown that an entity for which no change can ever occur is without any beginning and without any end. It is everlasting. Having a beginning means change, and coming to an end also means change. So for an entity for which no change can ever occur there will be no beginning, no end; for it there will be neither any coming into existence nor any going into non-existence.

Thus it can be shown that simply by default TW will always be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated and everlasting, without a beginning and without an end.

Amen.

11Prompt - Unborn

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Tags:

Irony of Modern Science

Tags:

Problem with an Eternal Universe

Tags:

The Whole is unborn, uncreated, without a beginning and without an end.

Tags: