<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://11prompt.com"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>11Prompt - Timelessness</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=taxonomy/term/110</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>A Falsehood spread about God</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/604</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;For many years, scientists have been propagating a falsehood about God. That falsehood is as follows: &quot;The God-hypothesis does not predict anything that can be tested,&quot; or &quot;The God-hypothesis does not have any observational consequences.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, this cannot be considered definitive proof of God&#039;s existence, because God&#039;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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 &quot;spaceless and timeless&quot;; instead, they are calling it non-spatiotemporal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So there&#039;s no need for atheists to worry about proving God&#039;s existence. They can simply go on spreading the same falsehood — that &quot;God-hypothesis does not predict anything.&quot;1&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Footnote:&lt;br /&gt;
1. Translated from Bengali with the help of ChatGPT.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/161&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Scientists&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/345&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;ChatGPT&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/53&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/54&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 12:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">604 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/604#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Atheist now sees ghost of god everywhere</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/567</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;&quot;If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.&quot; – Voltaire&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth; therefore if God did exist, he would have to be abolished.” - Mikhail Bakunin&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;God cannot be so easily abolished, because even an atheist is now seeing god where there is no mention of god. Below is the story:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; Athiest1&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I like how you pick apart the idea of timelessness and spacelessness. In the future, however, I think you could get a lot of further traction by pointing out how space and time are not even separate entities unto themselves. General relativity is very clear that space and time are linked into a single entity called spacetime. We also know that the nature of spacetime is not very well understood, and that there are all sorts of wacky things it could transform into or causally derive from---especially in the realm of ultra high energy and density like the Big Bang. So whenever these Christians speak of the universe just popping into existence, they are demonstrating very clearly that they simply don&#039;t understand the fundamental nature of spacetime and causality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Athiest1&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges&#039; from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in&#039; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
      - The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_ &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don&#039;t know what it&#039;s replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, &quot;I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
      - Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”&lt;br /&gt;
      - Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist2 to Me&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lol. xxxxxxx bullshit&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist2&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not me but the scientists working with the quantum theory of gravity who are saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that will mean that there is something more fundamental than space-time from which space-time has emerged. This something more fundamental than space-time cannot be within any space-time because there cannot be any space-time prior to the emergence of space-time. This is nothing but simple common sense. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Being not within any space-time it cannot be material, because GR forbids it. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, do you lack simple common sense and are you also anti-science that my argument appears to you as xxxxxxx bullshit?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist3 to Me&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think he&#039;s upset because your confirmation bias is showing. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You&#039;ve skipped over this key part: &quot;What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You want to see it as fitting the definition of your god, but that&#039;s not what they&#039;re saying. They&#039;re saying there&#039;s something &#039;below&#039; our universe that has its own manifestation of energy. They&#039;re saying it is not OUR universe, but it still has laws nonetheless, only these laws dictate the manifestation of energy into universes. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is by no means evidence of a creator. If you did not intend to imply that, my apologies, but the correlation seemed strong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist2 to Me &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that will mean that there is something more fundamental than space-time from which space-time has emerged&quot; Citation xxxxxxx needed. Religious bullshit all over.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist3 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You have written: &quot;You want to see it as fitting the definition of your god, but that&#039;s not what they are saying.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You have also written: &quot;It is by no means evidence of a creator.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Can you show by any direct quote where I have mentioned god or a creator in my first comment? So, from where have you brought all these entities and accusing me unnecessarily? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In my comment I have only tried to show what would be the logical consequences if spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. If my analysis appears to someone as xxxxxxx religious bullshit, then I will say 21st century physics is xxxxxxx religious bullshit that says that we will have to abandon the notion that spacetime is fundamental.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist3 to Me &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You said, &quot;...spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.&quot; This is a common definition for a christian god.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist3&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the Christian God has got consciousness. Have I written in my comment that the entity from which space-time has emerged is a conscious entity?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist3 to Me &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As I stated before, if you did not mean to imply that, my apologies. You&#039;ve asked for a reason for my interpretation of your intent, and I gave it to you. Maybe you can grow from this by understanding how other people may interpret your communications, and shape them accordingly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist3 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is okay. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However I want to say one thing here. Actually theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is the reason as to why my final conclusion appears to you so similar to the definition of the theistic god. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here the story ends.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now we can say that the new physics of emergent spacetime has given such a marvelous twist to the ultimate reality that even an atheist now mistakes it for God.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/53&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/54&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/280&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Voltaire&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/281&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Bakunin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/274&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Nick Huggett&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-8&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/282&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Christian Wuthrich&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-9&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/270&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;David Gross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-10&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/271&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Edward Witten&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-11&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/272&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Nathan Seiberg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-12&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/273&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Donald D. Hoffman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-13&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/279&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Kate Becker&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 04:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">567 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/567#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Is Multiverse Real?</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/566</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;In one YouTube presentation the question discussed was whether Atheism was Impervious to Evidence. The following thread is from that presentation.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist1 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, atheism is not impervious to evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence for a god, to date nobody has done that, not even once. There has never been any testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence presented for any deity ever.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; Me to Atheist1  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges&#039; from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in&#039; 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.&lt;br /&gt;
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_ &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don&#039;t know what it&#039;s replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, &quot;I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org) &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex¬plain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamental¬ly spaceless and timeless physics. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time—in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the Uni¬versity of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classi¬cal spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.”&lt;br /&gt;
- Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;4) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”&lt;br /&gt;
- Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity. That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that is spaceless, timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It may so happen that within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent. However, only time can tell whether that will really happen or not.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist2&lt;br /&gt;
&quot;Do you know one thing&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I can tell you one thing: the claim you make following that is bunk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist2&lt;br /&gt;
Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science. And here you have just done that which is expected from a dogmatic atheist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist1 to Me&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The only atheist position there is is clear in the word &quot;atheism&quot; it&#039;s self. That is we are without theism, &quot;A&quot; - without, &quot;theism&quot; - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. We lack a god belief and/or we lack a conviction in the existence in any deities whatsoever, it&#039;s nothing more than that. Explain to me how your claim that scientists &quot;admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent&quot; makes it so atheist denounce science by stating we don&#039;t have a god belief? Explain to me the logic in that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist1 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons. Out of these several reasons two reasons are that as per atheists nothing can be spaceless and timeless and that nothing can be immaterial. Atheists can no longer deny the existence of god/gods on the basis of these two reasons without denouncing science. The case is closed for them forever. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However there are other reasons also. Does the universe need any god? No, because everything in the universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god/gods. At least this has been claimed by the atheistic scientists in general. But this is not true. There are some controversial cases also. Two such cases are origin of the universe and fine-tuning problem. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here atheists will say that fine-tuning problem is not at all a problem, because eternal inflation would give rise to infinite number of universes and fine-tuning problem can be solved very easily with multiverse hypothesis. But two scientists have raised serious doubt about the efficacy of multiverse hypothesis for solving the fine-tuning problem. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ethan Siegel in his article Yes, The Multiverse Is Real, But It Won&#039;t Fix Physics1  has written that ‘If cosmic inflation, General Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse likely is real, and we&#039;re living in it.’ But he has also added this reminder that ‘Just don&#039;t expect it to solve your most burning questions about the Universe. For that, you need physics you can put to an experimental or observable test. Until that day arrives, the consequences of a Multiverse will likely remain in the realm of science fiction: where they presently belong…The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer to absolutely nothing.’ &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But Hyun Seok Yang in his article Emergent Spacetime: Reality or Illusion?2 is more radical in his approach than Ethan Siegel, because as per him there would be no multiverse at all even if there would be inflation. Inflation theory was developed based on the assumption that spacetime was fundamental. But in case of emergent spacetime there would be no eternal inflation and so, there would be no multiverse. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If multiverse is gone forever due to emergent spacetime, how will the scientists solve the fine-tuning problem without invoking some sort of intelligence behind the beginning of everything? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And what will the atheists do then? Will they still cling to the multiverse hypothesis by denouncing science? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist1 to Me &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons.&quot; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Well if you actually comprehended my comment I spoke of atheists positions, not reasons. The position being &quot;That is we are without theism, &quot;A&quot; - without, &quot;theism&quot; - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.&quot; But since you mention it there IS only one reason, it would be the fact that atheists lack a conviction in God because of insufficient evidence. If you were to PROVE the existence of gods beyond a shadow of a doubt to an atheist then they wouldn&#039;t be an atheist anymore because belief isn&#039;t a choice. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The claim that you make that atheists can no longer lack the conviction in god or gods without denouncing science on the basis that &quot;scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent&quot; or that our universe is finely tuned is an unbridled and incredibly obvious logical fallacy. Nothing about these two claims PROVE definitively or uncover or point to or even suggest or hint in the slightest to the existence of a god or gods AT ALL, zero, nothing, nada. I challenge you to find me one legitimate piece of scientific literature that is peer reviewed and that is testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable and has been published in a reputable scientific journal that states that deities are real, just one. Until you do so you&#039;re nothing but a snake oil salesman making logical fallacies, misrepresenting legitimate science and jumping to moronic conclusions to fit your agenda. I state this one more time, show me one piece of peer reviewed, scientific literature proving gods are real. I&#039;ll spoil it for you now, you will not be successful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist1   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Suppose I put some simple questions to you. Will you please answer those questions? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My first question will be: if there has never been any unicorn on this Earth, then should science give any evidence in support of its existence?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Atheist1 to Me&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Science has never given evidence of unicorns or Gods/deities because there is no evidence for either. What you presented and asserted was evidence for deities a WAS NOT EVIDENCE FOR DEITIES. Stop wasting my time with nonsense. Now I will ask you show me peer reviewed scientific literature of testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence of god published in a scientific journal. Can you do that?? No? Then you have no evidence for god and you have no reason to believe. Now go away and stop wasting my time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me to Atheist1 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Do you have a nervous breakdown? Are you having a previous history of hysteria? Otherwise why such a violent reaction against a very simple question from my side?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You have asked about some peer-reviewed evidence for God. May I ask you one question here? Are you still in your infancy that you require constant spoon-feeding from the peers? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Do you know one bitter truth about these peers? These peers are very good in physics, but at the same time they are very bad in philosophy; actually they are some coarse-headed bad logicians. That is why they have taken more than hundred years of time for arriving at a conclusion that they could have arrived at very easily almost hundred years earlier when Einstein has proposed his special theory of relativity. In SR it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. As God has been called spaceless and timeless for thousands of years, so here either science was flawed, or if science could not be flawed, then definitely there was something objectively real in man’s imagination of God; God could not be purely imaginary. If they have argued like that at that time, then they could have very easily come to the conclusion that even if there was no God, still there was something spaceless and timeless in the universe for which SR had provided requisite explanation. So they could have said the same thing hundred years earlier what they are saying now that there is something non-spatiotemporal in the universe. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And you want to depend on these peers for scientific proof of God! I am telling you very frankly that as they have taken almost hundred years for coming to such a simple conclusion, so they will take another hundred or two hundred years for coming to the conclusion that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
1. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/25/yes-the-multiverse-is-real-but-it-wont-fix-physics/#455f442e33a6&quot;&gt;https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/25/yes-the-multiver...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2. &lt;a href=&quot;http://arXiv.org/abs/1504.00464&quot;&gt;http://arXiv.org/abs/1504.00464&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/113&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Universe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/157&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Multiverse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/53&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/54&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/168&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Einstein&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/270&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;David Gross&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-8&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/271&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Edward Witten&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-9&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/272&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Nathan Seiberg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-10&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/273&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Donald D. Hoffman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-11&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/274&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Nick Huggett&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-12&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/275&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Christian Wutrich&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-13&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/96&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Stephen Hawking&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-14&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/276&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Vlatko Vedral&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-15&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/277&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Ethan Siegel&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-16&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/278&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Hyun Seok Yang&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-17&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/279&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Kate Becker&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">566 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/566#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Which God?</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/557</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;In one YouTube comment thread an atheist has asked this question: &#039;Which god? I like Zeus... Can I study his word as the one and only truth? Odds are he&#039;s as right as Yahweh is or Allah or Odin or Shiva or Osiris or... You get the point&#039; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Actually there can be only one true God, a God who has created the universe. The answer is as simple as that. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But how do we come to know that out of these thousands of gods which particular god has actually created the universe?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So our next question will be: what are the attributes of this creator God? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here no spoon-feeding from the big peers is required at all. One&#039;s own intelligence is sufficient for this purpose. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Universe has been created by God. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy has been created by God. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That will again mean that before creation God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But God of almost all the major religions all over the world has been repeatedly described as spaceless and timeless. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But where is the evidence that there is such a creator God?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In that case they could have very easily falsified science and shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In that case all our arguments for a creator God would have stopped then and there.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So they had to show how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus they have failed to suppress the truth that it is really possible to be spaceless and timeless. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is most important for us believers that science has failed to suppress the truth that it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Here, am I not insulting the whole scientific community by suggesting that they can even think of suppressing any scientific truth? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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.]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus both logic and science converge here and point to a single entity: creator God.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/539&quot;&gt;http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/539&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546&quot;&gt;http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/555/600&quot;&gt;http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/555/600&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The above tells us a lot about the mind-set of the atheists.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/113&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Universe&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/243&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Allah&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/244&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Zeus&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/245&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Odin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/246&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Thor&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/247&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Appollo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/248&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Osiris&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-8&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/249&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Ra&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-9&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/250&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Ganesha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-10&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/217&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Shiva&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-11&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/251&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Poseidon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-12&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/252&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Santa&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-13&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/253&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Easter Bunny&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-14&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/121&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spaceless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-15&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-16&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/122&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timeless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-17&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-18&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/149&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Immaterial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-19&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/143&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Mystics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-20&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/161&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Scientists&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-21&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/160&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Atheists&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 05:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">557 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/557#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/553</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;In an earlier article1 I have shown how an atheist tries to suppress his opponent’s voice. Recently I have come across another instance of this. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In one YouTube video comment section one person has written that theists are hilarious because they demand evidence for a multiverse, although they cannot provide any evidence for their God. He has also written that at least multiverse has intensely strong mathematical support behind it. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In reply I have to write to him that if multiverse has mathematical support behind it, then God also has mathematical support behind him, because two equations of SR have already shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. I also write to him that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth, because they consider multiverse as highly probable based on the mathematics of inflation theory, but these same scientists totally ignore God as probable, although there is mathematical support behind God also.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here comes another person saying that I am kidding and that there is no math that even hints at the existence of my particular God and that a fair amount of shoehorning is going on there.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As he has commented that there is no math that hints at the existence of my particular God, so I have to explain to him in detail that the two equations of SR shows how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how a state of spacelessness and timelessness can obtain, so from this it can be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable there is a God.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But this fails to convince him and he sticks to his opinion that I am shoehorning God into science. He also says that if I claim the probable existence of my God in this way, then in a similar way one can also claim the probable existence of other gods like the Greek Primordial Entity Chaos or the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or the Egyptian god Atum, any of which could be this Universe&#039;s creator instead of my particular God. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So I have to write to him that in the whole history of mankind only one God has been described as spaceless and timeless and that this God is the traditional God of almost all the religions all over the world. I also mention that even mystics have described their God as spaceless and timeless. I also write to him that if one wants to put all the other mythical gods in the same bracket with this traditional God, then one will definitely be mistaken. I also request him to mention one single god other than the traditional God of the religions who has been described as spaceless and timeless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But he does not comply. Rather he asks me to point to the text in my Bible that contains the terms &#039;timeless&#039; and &#039;spaceless&#039;. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Below are the two replies of mine that have been deleted:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reply one: Perhaps you are not much educated. That is why you think that every person who believes in God is a Christian and that the Bible is his/her religious text. I am a Hindu, but I do not depend on any religious text for my belief. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here is a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig who is well known as a Christian apologist and a good debater: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“And then on the rest of the page it’s fairly obvious how I deduce the remainder of these attributes which form the central core of the theistic notion of God: a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God.”1 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ref:&lt;br /&gt;
1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-1996#section_1&quot;&gt;http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-199...&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the above quote it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reply 2: You can also read the book ‘Mysticism and Philosophy’ by W. T. Stace, Chapter 2, Section 11: Conclusions, pages 131-132, by google search. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ref: WT Stace: Mysticism and Philosophy-wudhi.com&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the above two replies of mine have been deleted, so the impression one will get after going through the whole dialogue is that I have failed to establish my point because I could not produce the required text from the Bible which will further imply that the atheist has the last laugh here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The truth is that atheists cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that one scientific theory (SR) has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless and that at the same time religions have also described their God as spaceless and timeless. So either they try to show that SR is not a valid scientific theory2, or they try to show that mystics’ timelessness and scientists’ timelessness are not the same3, or when they cannot do anything of these, they directly suppress their opponent’s voice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
    1.	&lt;a href=&quot;http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/510/551&quot;&gt;http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/510/551&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    2. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546&quot;&gt;http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
    3. &lt;a href=&quot;http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/439/490&quot;&gt;http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/439/490&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/121&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spaceless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/122&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timeless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/148&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Immortal&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/208&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Uncaused&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/209&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Beginningless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/147&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Changeless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/149&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Immaterial&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-8&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/210&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Intelligent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-9&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-10&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-11&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/157&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Multiverse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-12&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/198&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Inflation Theory&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-13&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/116&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Special theory of relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-14&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/211&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Dr. William Lanr Craig&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-15&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/212&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;W. T. Stace&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-16&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/213&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Thomas Aquinas&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-17&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/214&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Greek Primordial Entity Chaos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-18&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/215&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Brahma&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-19&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/216&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Vishnu&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-20&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/217&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Shiva&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-21&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/218&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Atum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-22&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/219&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Mysticism and Philosophy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">553 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/553#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory?  Part I</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/546</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Atheists do have some deep basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:&lt;br /&gt;
•	There is nothing supernatural; and&lt;br /&gt;
•	Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861&quot;&gt;http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In simple terms:&lt;br /&gt;
1.	Space is not a perfect vacuum.&lt;br /&gt;
2.	The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.&lt;br /&gt;
3.	Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant star, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here there are only two possibilities:&lt;br /&gt;
1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;&lt;br /&gt;
2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here the atheist is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:&lt;br /&gt;
2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and&lt;br /&gt;
3) Distance is also variable.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that math of SR is wrong.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861&quot;&gt;http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, just that photons don’t experience time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The atheist&lt;br /&gt;
‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Me&lt;br /&gt;
There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and&lt;br /&gt;
2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/187&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Sapce-time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/121&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spaceless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/122&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timeless&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/188&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Theory of evolution&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/116&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Special theory of relativity&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/189&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Darwin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-8&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/168&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Einstein&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-9&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/190&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Dr. Sascha Vongehr&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-10&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/191&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Kuhn&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-11&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/192&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;EM spectrum&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-12&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/52&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-13&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/193&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Photon&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-14&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/194&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Reference frame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-15&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/195&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Matrix&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-16&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/139&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Atheist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">546 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/546#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Spaceless and Timeless God and Quantum Entanglement</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/542</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;We say God is all-pervading, God is everywhere. God is everywhere means God is present at each and every point of the universe. Although God is present everywhere, yet it is not the case that God’s presence is more at some points of space and less at some other points of space. Rather we will say that God is equally present everywhere. We will say that God is wholly present, fully present, entirely present at each and every point of the universe. As the same God is present at each and every point of the universe, so the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space should be zero, because the same God is present everywhere. One cannot be distant from one&#039;s own self. That the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space is really zero has already been confirmed by science through the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But the above is only one type of entanglement e.g. spatial entanglement. Mystics have repeatedly written about this spatial entanglement through their doctrine of interconnectedness of everything. Here is one quote from Bertrand Russell:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“The doctrine of interpenetration, according to which different things are not really separate, but are so merely conceived by the analytic intellect, is to be found in every mystic, Eastern or Western, from Permenides to Mr. Bradley.”1&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here is another quote from a poem by Francis Thompson, a British poet:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“All things by immortal power,&lt;br /&gt;
Near and far&lt;br /&gt;
Hiddenly&lt;br /&gt;
To each other linked are,&lt;br /&gt;
That thou canst not stir a flower&lt;br /&gt;
Without troubling of a star.”2&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here both Russell and Thompson are talking about the phenomenon of spatial entanglement only. When you stir a flower here on earth, a distant star in the sky is also troubled, because all things by immortal power - here the flower on earth and there the star in the sky - are hiddenly linked to each other. The separateness between the two is apparent only, not real. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But if God is really there, then there should be another type of entanglement: the temporal entanglement. As in case of spatial entanglement there is no real space gap between any two points in space, so in case of temporal entanglement there should not be any real time gap between any two moments in time. Mystic Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) has written elaborately about this entanglement while discussing God and time. First I will present some quotes from his writings:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Quote 1: “All that God created six thousand years ago and even earlier, when He created the world, He creates all of them right now.”3&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Quote 2: “There exists only the present instant... a Now which always and without end is itself new. There is no yesterday nor any tomorrow, but only Now, as it was a thousand years ago and as it will be a thousand years hence.”4&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Quote 3: “The now wherein God made the world is as near this time as the now I am speaking in this moment, and the last day is as near this now as was yesterday”5&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Quote 4 “All that happened a thousand years ago, the day of a thousand years ago, is no more remote in eternity than the moment in which I stand right now; again, the day which will come a thousand years from now, or in as many years as you can count, is no more distant in eternity than this very moment in which I stand presently.”6 &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From the above quotes it appears that as per Eckhart in God there is neither any yesterday nor any tomorrow, neither any past nor any future, but only the present instant. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the first quote above Eckhart is saying that all that God created six thousand years ago and even earlier, when He created the world, He creates all of them right now. Here we can see that first he used the past tense and then changed to the present tense. What he meant to say by this is that what is a past moment for us is not really a past moment for God. For us the moment God created the world was six thousand years ago, but for God this moment of creation is actually the present moment. So for us there is a time gap of six thousand years between the moment of creation and the present moment, but for God there is no such time gap between these two moments. These two moments are the same moment for God.  Here we will have to remember that Eckhart was from the 13th century and so naturally it was not possible for him to know anything about the big bang. However if he were alive today, he would have said that for God the big bang did not occur 13.8 billion years ago, rather it occurs right now. That means this time gap of 13.8 billion years is real for us human beings only, but it is not at all real for God. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not only that, in the fourth quote above he is also saying that “…the day which will come a thousand years from now, or in as many years as you can count, is no more distant in eternity than this very moment in which I stand presently.” That means for God there will be no time gap between this present moment and any moment that will come in future.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What all this means is that for God there is only one single present moment and that single present moment contains within itself all the past moments as well as all the future moments. Whatever happens in the universe happens in that present moment only. For God the moment the universe has begun and the moment it will come to an end is actually the same moment, whereas for us human beings there will be a time gap of several billion years between these two moments. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is not that Eckhart was the only person who had said such things about God. Before him St. Augustine had also said the same thing. Here is a relevant quote from Bertrand Russell:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“God is eternal, in the sense of being timeless; in God there is no before and after, but only an eternal present. God’s eternity is exempt from the relation of time; all time is present to Him at once.”7&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here also we see that St. Augustine is saying the same thing as Eckhart that in God there is no before and no after, but only an eternal present.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[Here I can also personally testify that what both St. Augustine and Meister Eckhart have written about God’s timelessness are true, because I personally have an experience of what God’s timelessness actually is. In the month of April 2009, on the last Sunday of that month, at about 8 pm, I had this experience of God’s timeless world. The first thought that came to my mind after having this experience was this: God has got no future. Atheists will readily agree, because as per them God does not exist and a non-existent God cannot naturally have any future. But they will be mistaken in thinking that, because I will again add: God has got no past. Actually God has got neither any past nor any future. God’s own world is really a very peculiar world, where there is neither any past moment nor any future moment. Those who think that after their death they will definitely go to heaven and live there eternally should think twice, because is it really possible for us human beings to live in a world where there is no future moment? We have been made in such a way that we have been accustomed to live in a world where there is both the past as well as the future. So how can it be possible for us to live in a world where there is no past, no future? So theologians should think seriously about it before proclaiming that as humans we have a heavenly after-life.] &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, if God is really there, then it must also be established that there is no real time gap between any two moments in time as it has already been established that there is no real space gap between any two points of space. This has also been established through the phenomenon of temporal entanglement. For this one can read the article “Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time” by George Musser in the Quanta magazine here.8&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One more point. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment was successful only because whatever happens in the universe happens in one single moment only, this single moment being God’s eternal present moment.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
1. Book: Skeptical Essays, 1928 Edition, Chapter: Philosophy in twentieth century, Page 69.&lt;br /&gt;
2. Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913) by Francis Thompson (1859-1907)..&lt;br /&gt;
3. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart-quotes.asp?pg=3&quot;&gt;http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart-quotes.asp?pg=3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
4. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/meistereck149156.html&quot;&gt;http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/meistereck149156.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
5. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.azquotes.com/quote/588337&quot;&gt;http://www.azquotes.com/quote/588337&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
6. Book: Wandering Joy: Meister Eckhart&#039;s Mystical Philosophy,&lt;br /&gt;
By Reiner Schürmann, Page 58.&lt;br /&gt;
7. Book: History of Western Philosophy, Chapter: Saint Augustine’s Philosophy and Theosophy, Page 152, Simon and Schuster, New York.&lt;br /&gt;
8. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/&quot;&gt;https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/172&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Quantum Entanglement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/173&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Saint Augustine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/174&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Meister Eckhart&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/175&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Bertrand Russell&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/176&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Francis Thompson&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-8&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/177&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Permenides&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-9&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/178&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Mr. Bradly&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-10&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/179&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;J.A.Wheeler&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-11&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/180&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;George Musser&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">542 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/542#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Easiest Way to Prove that There is a God (New Version) </title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/536</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recently I put the following question to an atheist:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness, but that is not hard itself?’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;His reply was this:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘That doesn’t make sense.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Then again I wrote to him:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Thanks for your reply. From your reply it becomes clear that you also think that only a hard thing can have the property of hardness. I think this can further be translated to this: a hard thing will have the property of hardness simply because it is hard and not due to any other reason or factor lying outside of it. This is because if something can have the property of hardness due to some reason or factor lying outside of it, then in that case a thing that is not hard itself can also have this property. Am I clear up to this point?’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This made him furious. His angry retort was this:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Just how stupid do you think I am, Socrates? Tell me the point, don&#039;t try to sell me this scholastical dialectic.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So I had to say goodbye to him with this:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘I am not trying to sell you anything. I am just trying to show that there is evidence for the existence of God. But if you feel offended, then I will have to stop right now.’&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Actually the point that I was trying to establish was that a thing cannot have the property of hardness if it is not itself hard.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now let us suppose that what is really impossible has actually become possible, that there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself. In that case what will we have to conclude from this? We will have to conclude that the thing in question must have received this so-called property of hardness from something external to it (say A). Now it may be the case that A has also received this property from B, B has received it from C and so on ad infinitum. So here there will be an infinite regress. In order to stop this infinite regress we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a hard thing in nature from which the thing in question could have received its property of hardness. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That means if we find a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then that thing will give the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a similar vein we can also say that if we find in nature a thing that has the property of softness but that is not soft itself, then that thing will give the evidence that there is at least one soft thing in nature. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the same vein we can also say that if we find in nature an entity that has the property of timelessness but that is not timeless itself, then that entity will give the evidence that there is at least one timeless entity in the universe.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now is there an entity in nature that has the property of timelessness but that is not timeless itself? Yes, there is. Light is such an entity. SR has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. That means light has the property of timelessness. But light is not timeless, because light can be extinguished at any time. No star will burn forever in the sky. But a really timeless entity can never cease to be, because for it time does not exist. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. But for a timeless entity this very next moment will never arrive, simply because it is not in time. Thus a really timeless entity can never cease to be. That means the case of light is akin to the case of a thing that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, which will further mean that the property of timelessness is not light’s own inalienable property. Rather we will have to say that it has received this property from some entity external to it. Here also we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a timeless entity in the universe if we want to stop the infinite regress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, the property of timelessness of light shows that there is a timeless entity in this universe from which light has received its so-called property. As we have seen a timeless entity is also a deathless entity because it can never cease to be, so we can say that the property of light shows that there is a timeless and deathless entity in this universe. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;An entity can have the property of timelessness due to two reasons only:&lt;br /&gt;
1) If it is not in time:&lt;br /&gt;
2) Or, it can have this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Being not in time an entity will have this property simply by default. Being not in time it can never cease to be, because for it there will never be any second moment. As light can be extinguished at any time, so we cannot say that light has the property of timelessness due to this reason. Rather we will have to say that it has this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it. So in order to stop the infinite regress here we will have to ultimately posit the existence of an entity that will have this property simply because it is not in time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Simply put:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hardness is the property of a hard thing only. So, if we find this property in something that is not hard itself, then from that we can infer that there is a hard thing in nature.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Similarly we can say that timelessness is the property of a timeless entity only. So, if we find this property in some entity that is not timeless itself, then from that we can also infer that there is a timeless entity in the universe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/52&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/54&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">536 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/536#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Yes, There is a God</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/530</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Actually science has already admitted the existence of a spaceless and timeless God on the very same day when science has declared that space and time in our universe are relative. This is because existence of a spaceless and timeless God implies the relativity of space and time. Mystics have repeatedly said about their God that he is spaceless and timeless. So, if there is a God, then there is the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, because this God is everlastingly present with all his attributes. Due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, space and time in our universe cannot be absolute. For space and time to be absolute, they will have to have the same values in each and every case without any single exception. But due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe, space and time will have null values in at least one case, that is, in case of God, whereas in every other case they can have non-zero values. Thus we see that due to the presence of this everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time will fail to have the same values in each and every case. Special theory of relativity (STR) has also shown that space and time in our universe are indeed relative. So, if STR is not a pseudo-science, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. That means that if STR is not a pseudo-science, then this God of the mystics is very much real and not merely an apparition as claimed by the atheists. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whereas if there is no God, then in that case there will be no such state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe. So there will be no constraint on space and time that they will have to have null values in any single instance. Thus in that case it will be possible for space and time to be absolute. But we have not got such a universe.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I want to add one more point here. If anyone on this earth can show that despite the presence of an everlasting state of spacelessness and timelessness in addition to our universe space and time in our universe can still have absolute values, then let him/her show it. In that case we will also have to admit that there is no God.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/126&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spaceless and Timeless God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/143&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Mystics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/125&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Mystical experience&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/144&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Hallucination&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 09:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">530 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/530#comments</comments>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Fine Tuning Argument not Required for Proving the Existence of God</title>
 <link>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/523</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is not actually necessary that “fine tuning” of certain parameters will have to exist in reality for proving the existence of God. I think light with its very peculiar properties is sufficient for that purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Light originates within space and time but it goes beyond space and time. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped. So it will be neither in space nor in time during the total period of its existence. Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So light originating within space and time goes beyond space and time, because space and time become non-existent for it. And we cannot claim that this is without any cause. As light is not a conscious entity, so neither can we claim here that light has the capability of deciding its own fate that it will go beyond space and time. So this must have been caused by something else. But whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time; it is impossible. Let us suppose that this cause is A and that it lies within space and time. We can now ask two questions about A:&lt;br /&gt;
1) Are space and time non-existent for A also?&lt;br /&gt;
2) Or, are they not non-existent for A?&lt;br /&gt;
If 2), then how can A cause space and time becoming non-existent for light when they are not non-existent for A itself? But if 1), then we will have to ask the same question about A that we were earlier asking about light: what causes space and time becoming non-existent for A, when we know very well that A lies within space and time? So we see that A cannot be the ultimate cause that makes space and time non-existent for light, because here we will have to find out again the cause that makes space and time non-existent for A itself. In this way it can be shown that there will be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing within space and time that can be this cause. So ultimately we will have to go beyond space and time in search of this cause. A cause that lies within space and time is a natural cause, but a cause that lies beyond space and time is not a natural cause; it is a supernatural cause. So the cause that makes space and time non-existent for light is a supernatural cause.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;About light one can also read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011)1&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ref:&lt;br /&gt;
1.	&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861&quot;&gt;http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix&quot;&gt;&lt;h3 class=&quot;field-label&quot;&gt;Tags: &lt;/h3&gt;&lt;ul class=&quot;links&quot;&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-0&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/123&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;God&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-1&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/136&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Fine Tuning&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-2&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/52&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Light&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-3&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/53&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;space&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-4&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/54&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-5&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/109&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Spacelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-6&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/110&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Timelessness&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li class=&quot;taxonomy-term-reference-7&quot; rel=&quot;dc:subject&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/?q=taxonomy/term/137&quot; typeof=&quot;skos:Concept&quot; property=&quot;rdfs:label skos:prefLabel&quot; datatype=&quot;&quot;&gt;Infinite Regress&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 01:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Himangsu Sekhar Pal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">523 at https://11prompt.com</guid>
 <comments>https://11prompt.com/?q=node/523#comments</comments>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>