11Prompt - Origin of the Universe

When Can Science Say It Doesn't Need God?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 20 Jun 2026 18:16:40 +0000

In a post on a Facebook discussion forum, a commenter wrote: "All I know is that there is no place for God in any scientific theory." The response I gave him is provided here:

“You know this much, but you do not know the whole story. Scientists do not pay much attention to philosophers, but they highly respect one philosopher, and that philosopher is Hume. He stated that we cannot leap to the conclusion, based on a limited number of past observations, that what happened in the past will continue to happen in the future. No matter how many times we have seen 'A' happen in the past, we have always seen 'B' follow immediately after 'A'. From this, we cannot draw the conclusion that every time we see 'A' happen in the future, we will see 'B' follow 'A'. In the future, it could very well happen that 'A' is observed, but 'B' does not follow 'A'.

“You wrote that there is no place for God in any scientific theory. It is true that, until now, science has not needed God. However, you cannot use your current knowledge to prophesy that science will never need God in the future. You are not an astrologer or a fortune-teller that you can make such a prediction—or that even if you do make a prediction, it will turn out to be completely accurate.

“Only if science can one day explain everything from the origin of the universe to everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen in this universe, without bringing in an imaginary God, can science confidently claim that it has no need for God.

“However, if it is ultimately found that there remains a gap somewhere in the scientific explanation, and despite thousands of years of effort, that gap cannot be filled by any scientific explanation, then questions will begin to arise about whether what science has assumed as an axiom until now is actually true. Science assumes that it does not need to go outside of nature to explain the world. That very assumption of science will then be called into question.

“German scientist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote in one of her blog posts that it might take one thousand years to get answers to all of science's questions. It would be wise to wait until then.”

On Infinite Regress

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 06:39:06 +0000

In the article Existence of anything ultimately points to God1 I have shown that if anything exists at all, then ultimately there will have to be something that will be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress.

When I have posted this article in one YouTube comment thread, one commentator has asked the following question: ‘Why must we “stop an infinite regress”?

He has also remarked that as far as he can tell, ALL discussions of origins, purpose and meaning, eventually would lead to infinite regress if one cannot simply accept reality as it appears to be.

He is the same person who in another occasion has written that in Krauss’ hypothesis (A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing) it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that would include the laws of quantum mechanics, but that Krauss cannot explain why such laws should exist when there would be nothing. He has also written that like theists Krauss also runs into the problem that all explanations of origin would ultimately lead to infinite regress. He has written that no matter how the scientists explain the origin of the universe, it would have to be in terms of some pre-existing condition or entity, which leads to the question of why that is the way it is, and whatever explains that would then need to be explained.2

So the reason he has asked the above question is quite apparent. It is due to the sad realization that even the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe has failed to keep itself free from the infinite regress problem that is a real bug in the theistic explanation, because in the later case nobody knows why God would have to be always there or where did God come from. In the scientific explanation also one has to assume that quantum laws were already there but nobody can explain why that would have to be so. So the scientific explanation is no better than the theistic explanation in this respect, because in both the cases there would be an infinite regress. So, if we cannot stop this infinite regress in one occasion, then what is the use of trying to stop it in another occasion?

But this person is definitely wrong here, because the question ‘who created God?’ has already been answered and thus there would be no infinite regress in the theistic explanation. We have been able to show that God is a bunch of several zeroes and everybody knows that zero does not have to come from anything. For this one can read the article ‘Who created God?’ here3.

So it can be said that the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe still suffers from infinite regress problem, whereas the theistic explanation has overcome this problem. In that sense it can be said that the theistic explanation is much better than the scientific explanation.

We would also say that there is no need to feel frustrated over the issue that the infinite regress problem can never be solved, because we have successfully shown that it can be solved.

Reference:
1. http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/498/536
2. http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/556/601
3. http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/76/85

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

Where Science Has Gone Wrong So Far

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:49:53 +0000

I think there are at least three cases where science has gone wrong so far.

1) The first case is that physicists have found that the total energy of our present universe is zero. On the basis of this fact they have concluded that the entire universe has originated from nothing. But this is a wrong conclusion, because I have already shown here1 that the total energy of the universe would also be zero even if it has originated from something and not from nothing. So zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing.

2) The second case is that if we take it for granted that the universe has originated from nothing, then not only its total matter and energy, but its total space-time as well have also originated from nothing. So not only its total matter and energy, but its total space-time also should always remain zero, because space, time, matter and energy-all the four of them have originated from nothing. Something can come out of nothing provided that the totality of that something always remains zero. So total space, total time, total matter and total energy of our present universe must always remain zero if it is claimed that the universe has originated from nothing. Although scientists have shown that the total matter and the total energy of the universe is zero, yet they have not yet shown as to how the total space and the total time of the present universe also remain zero. This is one major drawback in their theory that the universe has originated from nothing. And if this theory cannot explain as to how the total space-time of the universe also remains zero, then these scientists will not be able to convince us that universe’s origin from nothing is actually the case.

This point has already been discussed in detail here2 and here3.

3) The third case is that scientists have artificially created a vacuum and then they have observed that virtual particles are still coming out of that vacuum. From this observation they have jumped to the conclusion that something is coming out of nothing, which means that something can actually come out of nothing. Then they have further concluded that the entire universe has also come out of nothing due to the quantum energy fluctuation in a void. But this conclusion may not be a sound one, because first of all it will have to be ascertained as to whether the void created by them is a real void or not. Scientists have created a void within the universe and not outside of it. If there is a God, then that God is omnipresent, everywhere. So, if there is a God, then the void created within the universe will not be a real void at all, because in that case there will be the presence of God within the void itself. In case there is no God, then only it can be said with certainty that the void is a real void. So first of all it will have to be established that there is no God. Without establishing this point first if these scientists want to proceed further, then all their conjectures, and all their conclusions based on those conjectures, might be proved wrong if ultimately it is found that there is a God. And to prove that there is no God it is necessary to show that there is no hand of God behind the creation event. That means scientists will have to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. This is because if there is a God, then definitely this universe will be his creation, and so if this explanation can be given, then it will show once and for all that there is no God. And it will also show once and for all that the void is a real void.

But instead of doing this first thing first, scientists have already presupposed that there is no God when they have concluded that the void created by them is a real void. Then based on this presupposition that there is no God they have shown that no God is actually needed for creating the universe, because it can naturally arise out of nothing due to the quantum energy fluctuation in a void. So this is nothing but a pure case of circular reasoning.

This point has already been discussed here4.

Reference:
1. http://11prompt.com/?q=node/521
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/380/431
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/425/478
4. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/50/67

11Prompt - Origin of the Universe

When Can Science Say It Doesn't Need God?

Tags:

On Infinite Regress

Tags:

Why I am not convinced that there is no God

Tags:

Where Science Has Gone Wrong So Far

Tags: