11Prompt - Immaterial

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:12:26 +0000

1) Physicists have shown that the total energy of the universe is zero.
2) SR has shown that mass and energy are equivalent.
3) Again GR has shown that space, time, and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any spacetime without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without spacetime. There is a saying of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Source: Google search)

Based on the three above, it can be shown that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

The total energy of the universe being zero, it can be shown that its total matter is also zero.

The famous equation of Einstein from SR shows that E is equal to m multiplied by c squared. If E is zero now, then m will be equal to zero divided by c squared, which will also be zero. So, the total energy of the universe being zero, Einstein's famous equation shows that in that case, the total mass of the universe will also be zero.

Now, the below portion is from Google search:
//What is mass in Physics with example? Mass can be best understood as the amount of matter present in any object or body. For example, a table, a chair, your bed, a football, a glass, and even air has mass. ... That being said, all objects are light or heavy because of their mass.//

As the total mass of the universe is zero, so the total amount of matter present in the universe will also be zero.

As the total matte of the universe is zero, so we can say that the universe as a whole is immaterial.

If the total matter of the universe is zero, its total spacetime will also be zero because as per GR, there cannot be any spacetime without matter.

What does it mean that the total spacetime of the universe is zero? It means that the universe as a whole is spaceless and timeless, or non-spatiotemporal, if we use the new scientific term that has replaced the old one spaceless and timeless.

We have already seen that the universe as a whole is immaterial. Now we have seen that it is also spaceless and timeless. So, we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

Again, the total energy of the universe always remains zero. Therefore, the universe as a whole will always remain spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

That means the universe as a whole does not change at all.

As the universe as a whole does not change at all, so we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, changeless, and immaterial.

That nicely explains why the wave function of the universe does not contain any time variable.

However, the above conclusion will be falsified if anybody in the near or distant future can show that the total energy of the universe has a non-zero value.

Atheist Using Double Standard for Ascertaining Truth

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 05:22:00 +0000

Recently I have some communications with an atheist.

He has written that there is a magic leprechaun who created the universe. He has also written that he has evidence for it, because he has a book which says so.

So I have to ask him as to whether his magic leprechaun is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because otherwise his magic leprechaun cannot be the creator of the universe because of the following reason:

Logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by magic leprechaun will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by magic leprechaun. That will further mean that before creation by magic leprechaun there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that before creation magic leprechaun was in no space and time and that magic leprechaun did not contain any matter and energy. So a magic leprechaun who is the creator of the universe will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Therefore a magic leprechaun who is not spaceless, timeless and immaterial will fail to qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of the creator of the universe.

In reply he informs me that this magic leprechaun comes from another universe and that he created this universe. He also writes that it is all in the book and that it makes more sense than the Biblical God. He also states that if something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, then it doesn't exist, because there is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. So as per him something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.

In reply I have to write to him that he has no idea about what it actually means to be spaceless nad timeless. For him spaceless and timeless means to be in no space for no time and therefore something that is spaceless and timeless does not exist at all. But actually it means something else. I present the following argument to him:

Whatever exists within the universe exists within space-time. But what about the universe itself? Does it exist within some higher space-time? Is there any space-time beyond the universe? If there is no space-time beyond the universe, then universe as a whole does not exist within any space-time. In that case shall we say that the universe does not exist?

Then I have given him one example also:

We also know that the universe is expanding. Now if one asks any cosmologist this question that what it is expanding into, they will always reply that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. Their answer is fully consistent with the big bang theory. Big bang theory says that space-time began along with the big bang only. That means big bang did not occur within any pre-existing space-time, because there was no space-time before the big bang. Therefore neither is the universe expanding within any pre-existing space-time. So, here cosmologists are also saying the same thing that the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. Again I ask him the same question: can we say that the universe does not exist because it is not expanding within any space-time?

In reply the atheist confirms that the universe does exist, because as per him the universe IS space time and matter. He states that as far as all of us know, there is nothing outside of our universe. So he thinks that it is indeed fully consistent with the Big bang theory. He also states that outside the universe there is no space and time where anything can exist and that therefore probably nothing exists without our universe.

In reply I have to write to him that everybody knows that universe is space, time and matter. But I have to give him a reminder that here the question is something else and that it is this: within which space-time does the universe as a whole exist if there is no space-time outside the universe? I have to repeat to him that his concept that spaceless and timeless means existing in no space for no time applies equally to the universe as well, because the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. I also write to him that in whichever way he will try to suppress this truth that the universe is not within any space-time, he will fail.

In reply he writes that there is a council of gods existing without time, space and matter, spending no time doing nothing no-where. He also writes that these gods never showed any interest in him or his well being. So, he guesses that the god(s) have better things to do with their no time, and that he will try to spend his time as good as possible, because he has to deal with time as because he is in the universe. He also requests me that in case I meet one or more gods, then I should tell them that he would really like to meet them. This is because he is very curious how it is to live without space and time.

In reply I have to write to him that his last comment shows that either he is a dogmatic person, or that his intelligence level is low. So either he refuses to understand (due to his dogmatism), or he fails to understand (due to his low level of intelligence) that whatever may be the ultimate reality, that ultimate reality can never be within any space and time.

Here the communication ends.

Here the atheist is clearly using double standard for ascertaining truth; he is using one standard for God and another standard for the universe. For him existence means existing within some space-time. So for him God does not exist because God is not within any space and time. But for him the universe exists, although as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space-time, because it is not expanding into anything. So as per his own standard he should also say that the universe does not exist. But he does not say so.

So his using double standard for ascertaining truth is quite apparent.

Which God?

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

In one YouTube comment thread an atheist has asked this question: 'Which god? I like Zeus... Can I study his word as the one and only truth? Odds are he's as right as Yahweh is or Allah or Odin or Shiva or Osiris or... You get the point'

So the most crucial question is: which god? Because there are thousands of gods which man has imagined so far. Out of so many gods, which one is the true god?

Actually there can be only one true God, a God who has created the universe. The answer is as simple as that.

But how do we come to know that out of these thousands of gods which particular god has actually created the universe?

There is an easy way out. First determine what will be the attributes of a creator god. Then find out which god out of these thousands of gods has these particular attributes of a creator god. Then that god will be the true god.

So our next question will be: what are the attributes of this creator God?

Anybody can find out what will be the attributes of this creator God if he/she is intelligent enough and if he/she can use his/her brain and logic properly.

Here no spoon-feeding from the big peers is required at all. One's own intelligence is sufficient for this purpose.

Universe has been created by God.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy.

So universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy has been created by God.

That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy.

That will again mean that before creation God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy.

That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

So a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.

Now let us ask ourselves this question: have Zeus, Ganesha, Poseidon, Santa, Easter Bunny, Odin, Thor, Shiva, Appollo, Osiris or any other mythical gods that we can think of, ever been described as spaceless, timeless and immaterial?

If not, then none of these mythical gods can qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of this creator God, because logic dictates that a creator God will always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

But God of almost all the major religions all over the world has been repeatedly described as spaceless and timeless.

Actually spacelessness and timelessness are the two most common major attributes of God of the religions throughout the world. Mystics who claim that they have direct encounter with God have also described their God as spaceless and timeless.

But where is the evidence that there is such a creator God?

Scientists have also faithfully served the purpose of this creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless (SR), whereas they could also have shown just the opposite, that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.

Yes, they could also have shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless if it was the job of the scientists to manufacture truth.

In that case they could have very easily falsified science and shown that no one or nothing could be spaceless and timeless.

In that case all our arguments for a creator God would have stopped then and there.

But it is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. So they had to show what they were supposed to show: THE TRUTH AS IT IS.

So they had to show how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

Thus they have failed to suppress the truth that it is really possible to be spaceless and timeless.

It is most important for us believers that science has failed to suppress the truth that it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

[Here, am I not insulting the whole scientific community by suggesting that they can even think of suppressing any scientific truth?

No, hereby I am merely uttering one bitter truth about some modern day scientists who so vehemently deny the existence of God that practically nothing is impossible for them, not even suppressing some scientific truth that may eventually point to a creator God.]

By showing how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, science has actually given its validation to our concept of a spaceless and timeless God. It has indirectly said here that from the scientific point of view it is not impossible for someone to be spaceless and timeless.

Logic dictates that a creator God will always be spaceless and timeless and science has also given its full support to this logical conclusion by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

Thus both logic and science converge here and point to a single entity: creator God.

Based on this fact alone it can safely be said that mathematics of SR points to a creator God whose two major attributes are his spacelessness and timelessness.

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

When I have pointed out to some atheists that God is called spaceless and timeless and that in SR science has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, they have desperately tried to falsify science. One can go through the below links to see it oneself:

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

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

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

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

What will be the total energy of the universe if created by God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 09 Apr 2017 05:39:31 +0000

It can be shown that the total energy of the universe would also be zero if it is created by some supernatural agent. Let us say that this supernatural agent is God. Now what does it mean that the universe has been created by God? As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so universe created by God will mean its space, time, matter and energy have been created by God. That will further mean that before creation by God there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That will again mean that God was in no space and time and that God did not contain any matter and energy. That is the reason as to why theists always describe their God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. (There are some atheists who failing to grasp this simple logic raise question about this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God. But a creator God can never be anything other than spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because this is the one and only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.) Neither this spaceless, timeless and immaterial God can contain any energy, because energy was also created by God only along with the creation of the universe. That means the total energy content of God is zero. Therefore the total energy content of the universe will also be zero, because universe cannot contain more energy than the source from which it has originated.

Here it might be objected that neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed. But if we keep in mind that the total energy of the universe has always remained fixed at its zero value, then we can say that as such energy has not been created or destroyed at all. Only that it has taken positive and negative forms in the universe, the total energy always remaining zero. The same can be said about matter also.

This once again shows that the reasoning of Lawrence Krauss is faulty when he has argued that as because the total energy of the universe has been found to be zero, so from this it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.1 But here we have shown that the total energy of the universe will also be zero even if it is created by God. So once again it is established that zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/449/498

How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0000

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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's creator instead of my particular God.

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.

But he does not comply. Rather he asks me to point to the text in my Bible that contains the terms 'timeless' and 'spaceless'.

Below are the two replies of mine that have been deleted:

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.

Here is a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig who is well known as a Christian apologist and a good debater:

“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

Ref:
1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-199...

In the above quote it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless.

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.

Ref: WT Stace: Mysticism and Philosophy-wudhi.com

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.

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.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/510/551
2. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/439/490

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

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

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

Is the Universe Immaterial?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 05:42:51 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

So I think the whole issue needs re-examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

1. Positive atheism quotes of Victor J. Stenger, http://www.positiveatheism.org
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/543/586

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:48:58 +0000

The reason as to why theists call their God spaceless, timeless and immaterial is due to the recognition of the fact that if the universe has a beginning, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy.

Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy. Therefore when we say that the universe has a beginning, we mean to say that its space, time, matter and energy have a beginning. Now the question is: can the universe have a beginning from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy? If the source already contained space, time, matter and energy, then that would mean that space, time, matter and energy were already there. If space, time, matter and energy were already there, then that would further mean that the universe was already there. If the universe was already there, then why do we again say that the universe has a beginning?

The above reasoning shows that if the universe has a beginning at all, then that beginning can never be from a source that already contained space, time, matter and energy because in that case it will imply that the universe was already there. Therefore the beginning of the universe will always mean that it can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only. As the universe can begin from zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy only, so the total space, total time, total matter and total energy of the universe should always remain zero, as otherwise one will have to explain as to whence appear the extra space, extra time, extra matter and extra energy that were not already there at the beginning.

So for a universe having a beginning this question must have an answer: how does the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remain zero?

Only a beginningless, eternal universe will not give us any such trouble.

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/380/431
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/425/478
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/496/534

Irony of Modern Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11Prompt - Immaterial

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Tags:

Atheist Using Double Standard for Ascertaining Truth

Tags:

Which God?

Tags:

What will be the total energy of the universe if created by God?

Tags:

How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice

Tags:

Biggest Blunder Committed by Science

Tags:

Is the Universe Immaterial?

Tags:

What does the Beginning of the Universe actually mean?

Tags:

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Tags:

Irony of Modern Science

Tags: