Explaining Samapatti & Knowing without Mind by Vedanta by Syamala D. Hari, Alan J. Oliver

Sampatti is a state of consciousness without or beyond the mind. In earlier articles, Sampatti experience was explained based on the philosophy of Patanjali written in Yoga Sutras dealing with Consciousness and mind. By getting into the Sampatti state one of the authors of this article (Oliver) could heal physical and psychological afflictions of some people and animals. The experiences of the healer and the healed subjects in such Sampatti sessions are ‘anomalies’ and make one wonder whether consciousness is what we usually think it is. In this article, we analyze some of the questions about consciousness, which arise because of the anomalous nature of Sampatti experiences of both the healer/seer and the subjects. In the analysis, we use an analogy between a living being (with a body and mind) and a computer (with hardware and stored software) to describe some fundamental concepts common to different branches of Vedanta. We find that the Sampatti experiences are consistent with and can be explained by Vedanta in general, as well as by the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/511

Nonlocal Processes & Entanglement as a Signature of a Cosmic Hyperdimension of Consciousness by Chris H. Hardy

Five groups of anomalies regarding spacetime laws reveal ‘beyond spacetime’ processes and point to a meta region of the universe that would accommodate them. They are (1) the nonlocality in entanglement; (2) nonlocality in psi processes; (3) a sub-Planckian (subquantum) region at the origin of the universe (preceding the emergence of matter, space, and time), as well as at the sub-Planckian scale in general; (4) a non-material ‘dark energy’ filling the cosmos; and (5) speeds breaking the speed of light C during the inflation phase. Moreover, the connective and/or semantic properties of these anomalies rule out a quantum vacuum or quantum mechanics (QM) explanation as well. Such a ‘beyond spacetime’ region, in cosmology, has to be modeled as a hyperdimension (HD). The Infinite Spiral Staircase Theory (ISST, Hardy 2015) posits a triune hyperdimension—of hyperspace, hypertime and consciousness—, that allows all five anomalies while laying a cogent grounding for meaningful (semantic) interconnectedness and mind-over-matter influences as exhibited both by psi and by the connective dynamics of mind and consciousness in Semantic Fields Theory. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/517

That Which Becomes by Steven E. Kaufman

That which becomes is the Formless, whereas that which the Formless causes to exist and knows as experience is form. When That which becomes knows Itself as the Formless there is then no delusion. But when That which becomes knows itself as form there is then only delusion.
See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/522

There Is No Material World by Steven E. Kaufman

The Formless is just a word, just a form, just a post-it note, used to point toward That which is beyond form and so beyond naming. Call what is actually there where form appears to be whatever you want. It is not that. That is why there is no material world, other than as an idea, an experience, a form, that arises within the Formlessness by which all form is known and by which all form is created. The material world is just a story, a certain arrangement of forms, that people tell each other to try and explain the world of form. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/523

Awareness, Illusion & Form by Steven E. Kaufman

Forms that arise within Awareness do not hide Awareness from Itself, unless Awareness mistakes those forms for what is actually there where they only appear to be, and in so doing also mistakes those forms for itself. This is how Awareness becomes hidden from Itself. Not because Awareness isn't there, but only because Awareness mistakes what only seems to be there for what is actually there. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/524

The Perfection of Suffering by Steven E. Kaufman

What we experience as reality is a perfect expression of the relation of Beingness to Itself that creates what we experience as reality. And suffering is the perfect expression of Beingness that is in a relation of conflict with Itself. To change the expression one must change the relation, and to change the relation one need only cease to react with attachment and aversion to whatever expressions of wantedness and unwantedness happen to be arising Now, in this moment, which is the only moment there ever is. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/525

Stories by Steven E. Kaufman

Religion tells a story about What Is Actually There. Science tells a different story about What Is Actually There. Lao Tzu also told a story about What Is Actually There. Lao Tzu knew that he was only telling a story about What Is Actually There. Religion and science, on the other hand, each believe they have captured, in their stories, What Is Actually There. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/526

The Matrix of Form by Steven E. Kaufman

The Universe is just the Unchanging flowing through an opening that has arisen within Itself. The One appearing as the many. Lost in the appearance, identified with the appearance, the underlying Actuality vanishes while always still there as That which is aware of all appearances. In this way the Changeless, while flowing through the opening that is the human Form, becomes lost in a matrix of form. And so humanity seems trapped within that matrix, within the matrix of form. But beyond that matrix is not some hidden hellscape, but is the paradise lost of our own formless Being. It is the matrix of form in which we are lost, in which we have trapped ourselves, that is the hellscape, the arena of suffering, we wish to escape. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/527

Omnipresence by Steven E. Kaufman

The omnipresence and omniscience of what we call God, of what we call Consciousness, is nothing special, for it is simply a function of the nature of the Universe, which includes the nature of That of which the universe is composed. God pervades what seems to be there, what appears to be there, because God is What Is Actually There. Consciousness pervades what seems to be there, what appears to be there, because Consciousness is What Is Actually There. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/528

Something from Nothing Steven E. Kaufman

Because the absence of nothing cannot be, nothing is not absent, but is present. And this Presence, which is Nothing, is that which creates something. Nothing creates something by forming a relation with the only thing that actually is, which is Nothing. And the something which is created by Nothing is known by that Nothing as reality.
See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/529

Christmas Consciousness by Steven E. Kaufman

Christmas is not ultimately a celebration of the physical birth of a certain person. That is just the excuse that Consciousness uses to throw a party celebrating the Awakening of Itself to the Christ-Consciousness, to the unity and oneness of Itself that lies hidden and obscured behind all appearances. Peace on Earth, good will toward men. Not just an empty slogan, but what naturally arises within any Consciousness that sees past the appearance of "I am this" and "you are that," and into the underlying Isness, and so into the underlying Oneness, and so into the singular "I am" that lies beyond the appearance of two things where there is only ever actually one Nothing. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/530

Samapatti & Knowing without Mind: Explanation by Vedanta by Syamala Hari, Alan J. Oliver

Sampatti is a state of consciousness without or beyond the mind. In earlier articles, Sampatti experience was explained based on the philosophy of Patanjali written in Yoga Sutras dealing with Consciousness and mind. By getting into the Sampatti state one of the authors of this article (Oliver) could heal physical and psychological afflictions of some people and animals. The experiences of the healer and the healed subjects in such Sampatti sessions are ‘anomalies’ and make one wonder whether consciousness is what we usually think it is. In this article, we analyze some of the questions about consciousness, which arise because of the anomalous nature of Sampatti experiences of both the healer/seer and the subjects. In the analysis, we use an analogy between a living being (with a body and mind) and a computer (with hardware and stored software) to describe some fundamental concepts common to different branches of Vedanta. We find that the Sampatti experiences are consistent with and can be explained by Vedanta in general, as well as by the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/430

Karma: The Unknown Factor in Life by Domadal Pramod

This paper illustrates and discusses conscious parts of a body, relation between karma and soul, karma and inheritance, karma and passion, karma and curse, law of karma, spiritual code of a soul, genius children, great souls, purpose of spirituality being purification of karma and finally, the need for scientific analysis. These topics are presented with known facts available in the literature. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/431

Life in Parallel Worlds & Buddhist Psycho-Metaphysics (Part I & II)
Graham P. Smetham

Michael B. Mensky’s quantum spiritual psycho-metaphysics is an overarching paradigm for a post-materialist science and philosophy, and his work in this area is of immense significance for the modern world. His quantum-spiritual psycho-metaphysics is entirely consistent with ‘mystical’ insights, in particular it is coherent with Buddhist psycho-metaphysics. Mensky’s quantum psycho-metaphysical paradigm succeeds dramatically by indicating that both Life and consciousness are fundamental internal aspects of quantum reality, Mensky’s ‘Alterverse’. Furthermore, according to Mensky’s quantum psycho-metaphysical model of the process of reality Life and consciousness are unfolded from the quantum realm through the operation of an inner teleological ‘pressure’ which Mensky calls the ‘Life-Principle’. This remarkable conceptual revolution, which shatters the materialist madness of many contemporary physicists and philosophers, is entirely consistent and coherent with the metaphysical insights of quantum theory and it corresponds closely with central Buddhist psycho-metaphysical doctrines such as karma and rebirth. Also, according to Mensky’s quantum spiritual worldview, the endpoint of the long chain of rebirths is enlightenment. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/432 ; http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/433

The Matrix of Form by Steven E. Kaufman

The Universe is just the Unchanging flowing through an opening that has arisen within Itself. The One appearing as the many. Lost in the appearance, identified with the appearance, the underlying Actuality vanishes while always still there as That which is aware of all appearances. In this way the Changeless, while flowing through the opening that is the human Form, becomes lost in a matrix of form. And so humanity seems trapped within that matrix, within the matrix of form. But beyond that matrix is not some hidden hellscape, but is the paradise lost of our own formless Being. It is the matrix of form in which we are lost, in which we have trapped ourselves, that is the hellscape, the arena of suffering, we wish to escape. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/434

Omnipresence by Steven E. Kaufman

The omnipresence and omniscience of what we call God, of what we call Consciousness, is nothing special, for it is simply a function of the nature of the Universe, which includes the nature of That of which the universe is composed. God pervades what seems to be there, what appears to be there, because God is What Is Actually There. Consciousness pervades what seems to be there, what appears to be there, because Consciousness is What Is Actually There. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/435

Something from Nothing by Steven E. Kaufman

Because the absence of nothing cannot be, nothing is not absent, but is present. And this Presence, which is Nothing, is that which creates something. Nothing creates something by forming a relation with the only thing that actually is, which is Nothing. And the something which is created by Nothing is known by that Nothing as reality. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/436

Christmas Consciousness by Steven E. Kaufman

Christmas is not ultimately a celebration of the physical birth of a certain person. That is just the excuse that Consciousness uses to throw a party celebrating the Awakening of Itself to the Christ-Consciousness, to the unity and oneness of Itself that lies hidden and obscured behind all appearances. Peace on Earth, good will toward men. Not just an empty slogan, but what naturally arises within any Consciousness that sees past the appearance of "I am this" and "you are that," and into the underlying Isness, and so into the underlying Oneness, and so into the singular "I am" that lies beyond the appearance of two things where there is only ever actually one Nothing. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/437

Is There a God? by Himangsu S. Pal

For nothing to be proper nothing, the non-existence of everything must not have any existence. That means nothing can only be proper nothing by not existing at all. That will further mean that only something can exist and not nothing. So we arrive at the conclusion that before the beginning of the universe there was something, and not nothing, from which our universe has originated. If the universe has originated from something, then that will mean that before the origin of the universe there was nothing else other than that something. This initial something was neither in any space nor in any time. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. This something is God. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/438

On Mystical & Scientific Timelessness by Himangsu S. Pal

Some mystics who had direct experience of God claimed that time is unreal. According to modern science, for light time would stop. Can there be two types of timelessness: one mystical & another scientific? See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/439

Valid Description of Experiencings & Thereby of Behaviors & Situations by Merton Krause

Human consciousness consists of a flux of experiencings, some referring to one’s own or to others’ situations or behaviors. Scientific human Psychology’s most fundamental responsibility is to describe and causally explain these three kinds of psychological events, which it can do only on the basis of persons’ descriptions of their experiencings. The privacy and momentariness of experiencings prevents proof of the veridicality of descriptions of them or their referents. These descriptions can therefore qualify as scientific data only on the basis of their validity, which first depends on their conformity to the scientific definitions of the dimensions of the specific kinds of experiencings described and of the situations or behaviors these may refer to. Persons comparably trained in applying these definitions should be relied on to judge the validity of such descriptions, and only their collegially approved descriptions of psychological events can properly constitute scientific human Psychology’s data base. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/519

Paraphysical Jurisprudent Massacre Mediation by Richard L. Amoroso

It is possible and thereby feasible to develop and implement a pragmatic methodology for a preemptive evidentiary system of ‘Paraphysical Jurisprudence’ for mediating the occurrence of massacres. A required comprehensive completion and formalizing of the tools of epistemology (theory of knowledge) already exists and has been tested both ecumenically and scientifically. The evolution of epistemology has followed the historical progression from myth and superstition to logic and reason to empiricism and now finally to the utility of ‘transcendence’ as a tool in knowledge acquisition. An inspiring example from popular culture is illustrated in the 2002 Hollywood film noir “Minority Report” designed by its director to present a ‘plausible future world’ for the year 2054 wherein an elaborate ‘Precrime Unit’ is tested to prevent murder by utilizing a trio of ‘precogs’ bathed in a ‘photonic milk’ able to presciently predetermine impending occurrences of homicide for which the Precrime Police Unit then intervenes to prevent. Disdain for a putative so-called scientific metaphysics by natural philosophers is deeply rooted in modern pragmatic societies; perhaps rightly so as consistency, credibility and lack of a comprehensive theory has been heretofore emphatically lacking. In addition to the major problem of repeatability is the perceived distinction between domains of the physical and so-called ‘spiritual’ as mutually exclusive. In this work a strong case is made for the rigorous viability and near term putative implementation of a system of paraphysical jurisprudence drawing on the utility of a panoply of concepts. The remaining question is when does feasible become practical in the face of a steady increase in the heinous massacre of innocents? See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/521

That Which Becomes by Steven E. Kaufman

That which becomes is the Formless, whereas that which the Formless causes to exist and knows as experience is form. When That which becomes knows Itself as the Formless there is then no delusion. But when That which becomes knows itself as form there is then only delusion.
See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/522

An Exploration of the Process of Becoming an 'I' & the Quantum World of Realities (Part I, II, II & IV) by Rajesh S. Dagli

In this series of articles, the author analyses epistemological and ontological developments of a human being, in particular, development of an ‘I’ within each of us. It is postulated that each overall 'I' is an energy exchange reservoir, that is constantly interacting with infinite variety of other environmental fields, and thus itself undergoing continuous metamorphosis, exhibiting no defining characteristics for either its brain or body that are unchanged even for an instant. Thus, each 'I', is not a product, nor an entity that we all believe as remaining unchanged within each of us all through the life. Rather, it is a process - a long process running all through the life - connecting infinite states of an emerging overall 'I' from instant to instant, exhibiting innumerable avatars of 'duality' between the two extremes of a wave and a particle. Each said avatar comes into being only at the instant of an actualization interaction with an environment, which otherwise remains non-existent. The study concludes, perplexingly and painfully, that each 'I' is as much a quantum-like process as that of an atomic particle.

Part I of the four-part series of articles includes: Introduction; 1. Does God Play Dice? Yes and No; 2: Cartesian World View; & 3. Human Behavior & Consciousness. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/518

Part II of the four-part series of articles includes: 4. Relativity of Realities; 5. Connecting Mind & Matter; & 6. Becoming of an “I”. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/534

Part III of the four-part series of articles includes: 7. The Unchanging Entity “I”; 8. Awareness; 9. Dissection of an “I”; 10. Abstracting an Order – ‘I’; and 11. One Mind: Many Realms. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/535

Part IV of the four-part series of articles includes: 12. Randomness in Terms of Probabilities; 13. Wave-Particle Duality of an ‘I’; Conclusions; and References. See http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/536

Reflections on Some Misrepresentations of Buddhist Philosophy & a Quantum Buddhist Mind-only Solution (Part I) by Graham P. Smetham

The metaphysical implications of the Yogācāra-Vijnanavada ‘consciousness-only’ school of Buddhist psycho-metaphysics has become an issue of some debate amongst some Western philosophers with an interest in Buddhist philosophy. The ‘canonical’ view amongst many significant scholars is that, as the name suggests, this perspective asserts that the ultimate nature of the process of reality is nondual primordial consciousness/awareness. On this ‘Idealist’ view the external apparently material world is considered to be a mind-created illusion. However, some contemporary Western philosophers are offering seemingly more materialist, or non-committal as to the existence of an external material world, versions. This article examines such claims and exposes their deficiencies. A quantum-Mind-Only Yogācāra-Vijnanavada perspective is explored. Part I: See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/444& Part II: http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/445

Werner Heisenberg & the Samadhi by C. Aguilar-Chávez, B. E. Carvajal-Gámez, J. López-Bonilla

The realization of the illusory nature of physical world represented for Heisenberg the most defining achievement in his entire distinguished scientific career. This realization was even more meaningful to Heisenberg than the Nobel Prize. If it were possible for more men and women dedicated to science to experience the sublime Samadhi, they would learn that the spirituality is fundamental to the study of the Universe. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/429

Sri Aurobindo at Alipore Jail by J. López-Bonilla

In this essay, I comment on the mystical experiences of Sri Aurobindo at Alipore jail which may be best summarized by his own words: “Spiritual life finds its better expression in the common life with the force from Yoga [; b]y connecting internal and external life to harmonize them, will allow humanity to become powerful and divine.” See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/441

Subhashitas: Metaphysical Thoughts (Part 1 & 2) Domadal Pramod

In Sanskrit literature the word “Subhashita” means good message. These subhashitas are condensed forms of messages with immense meaning and moral values. These may be termed as metaphysical thoughts for a better life in the society. This paper presents subhashitas based on spirituality which are occurred while giving physics lecturers, presenting talks and attending discourses at various places over the long period of my teaching profession. These are properly composed and compared with dissimilar objects to make authentic concepts and valuable information. These subhashitas would stimulate scientists, scholars and students to investigate in different dimensions for any discoveries for the benefit of the society. Part 1: See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/447& Part 2: See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/448

First-hand Experience of the Self through Imagination by Contzen Pereira, J. S. K. Reddy

Imagination is the art of exploring beyond the depths of one’s body. Imagination allows one to peek into the void to realize the true existence of its self and feel the existence of eternity. The experience of imagination is a subjective experience of one’s own consciousness and it is this experience makes the experiencer worthy. Creation and creativity are the end aspects of imagination and unfold the hidden mysteries of the cosmos. This essay is a trip across the cosmic energy that creates the self for experiencing its self - a first-hand experience through the virtuosity of imagination. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/443

Lawrence Krauss' Faulty Logic by Himangsu S. Pal

From the mere possibility that the total energy of our present Universe is zero, it cannot be concluded that it has actually originated from nothing, because even if it has originated from something, its total energy would be zero as I argued previously in this journal. Thus, Lawrence Krauss and perhaps some other materialist scientists along with him, have wrongly concluded that, as the total energy of the Universe is found to be zero, it must have come from nothing. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/449

Where Some Materialistic Scientists Have Gone Wrong by Himangsu S. Pal

In this essay, I argue that there are at least three cases where some materialistic scientists have gone wrong so far. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/450

My Journey in Samapatti by Alan J. Oliver

I am aware that the Samapatti experiences and the two kinds of memory are, in accordance with the many Hindu traditions, only available to someone who is 'established' in the Samadhi state. Established meaning that is the person's normal state. Being born that way implies an individual level of attainment, as information, can influence an incoming life. In other words, it is the information which reincarnates. See http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/451

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.

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.

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.

In a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig in March, 2014 theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has said the following in his opening speech:

If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal. The time parameter in Schrödinger’s equation, telling you how the universe evolves, goes from minus infinity to infinity.1

But is it possible that the universe can have non-zero energy value? Let us suppose that the universe has non-zero energy value. In that case the universe will behave like a giant matter, because we now know that matter and energy are equivalent. This giant matter will create its own gravitational field that will try to extend beyond the universe, because here the entire universe itself is the matter that has created that field. But there is actually no space outside the universe where this field can extend. For this we can give two reasons. Scientists say that there was no space and time before the big bang. Space and time came into existence along with the big bang only. So there was no preexisting space-time within which this big bang occurred. Another reason is that this universe is also expanding at an accelerating rate. But when it is asked what it is expanding into, the answer we usually get from the scientists is that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. So these two points suggest that there is no space-time outside the universe. Therefore universe as a whole cannot have any gravitational field that will extend beyond the universe. So, if it is the case that there is no space outside the universe, then in that case it cannot have any non-zero energy value.

Dr. Sten Odenwald has provided the following information on behalf of NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program:

‘General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.’2

So, if at any time of its evolution the universe has non-zero energy value, then it will create the gravitational field that will extend beyond the universe. As space is just another feature of the gravitational field, so in that case there will be space outside the universe. But cosmologists repeatedly say that there is no space outside the universe, because the universe is not expanding into anything. So universe having non-zero energy directly contradicts the statement that there is no space outside the universe.

Ref:
1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in...
2. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

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

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

When some scientists have given an explanation for the origin of the universe due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void, was it that their sole purpose was just to show how the universe had actually originated? No, they were having one more open agenda and some scientists are still very much vocal about it: they want to send a message to all sorts of superstitious believers all over the world, so that they can forever arise from their dogmatic slumber, that this universe does not need any kind of God in any way. So I have to point out to them that the non-existence of God cannot be established in this way, because this is some sort of circular reasoning.1 But someone has pointed out that while giving an explanation for the origin of the universe scientists are in no way obliged to assume that there is a hand of God behind the creation event, because there is no evidence for the existence of any such God. So I think I have failed to make my point clear earlier and therefore this time I will have a second try.

Let us suppose that there is really a God and that this God is a non-interventionist God. That means after creating the universe it has not intervened in its creation in any way. So in such a case it is in no way possible for anybody to get any proof of its existence from the created world. Getting no proof some scientists may think here that there is no God. Still it will be a wrong conclusion. This is because as the believers cannot claim that they know with certainty there is a God, so similarly neither the scientists can claim that they know with certainty there is no God. So these scientists do not know at all whether there is any such God or not. If they claim that they do know, then we will ask: how do they come to know? What is their source of knowledge? As it is not at all possible for anybody to know beforehand whether this non-interventionist God does exist or not, so here both the possibilities should be kept open while giving an explanation for the origin of the universe: either there is a hand of God behind the creation event, or there is no such hand. Now the question is: does the method that some scientists have employed for explaining universe’s origin show in any way that this non-interventionist God does not exist? No, not at all. It can of course show that all sorts of interventionist gods do not exist, but it cannot, and does not, show that this non-interventionist God does not exist, because this method is essentially based on the assumption that this non-interventionist God does not exist and that is why this is a case of circular reasoning. However if the scientists can give an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe not by means of the usual quantum energy fluctuation in a void but by some other means, then that will settle the matter once and for all that this non-interventionist God does not exist. Whereas their failure here will show that there is some unknown force behind the creation event.

So my conclusion is this: universe’s origin from a quantum void is not evidence for the non-existence of a non-interventionist God.

Reference:
1. http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/561/579

There is good reason to believe that something or someone exists beyond space-time. Whatever exists within space-time is contingent upon space-time for its existence; if space-time is gone, then everything within space-time will also be gone. So it cannot acquire any property or characteristic from space-time itself or from anything within space-time that will make space-time itself non-existent, because by that process it will cause its own demise. This is simple common sense. Our existence is contingent upon the existence of earth; so if we destroy the earth, we will also be destroyed.

Now light originates within space-time; that means the existence of light is contingent upon the existence of space-time. So in case of light also the above will be true; light cannot acquire any property or properties from space-time itself or from anything within space-time that will make space-time non-existent for it. But from SR we see that time totally stops for light and that even infinite distance becomes zero for it. That means space and time become non-existent for light. Therefore due to the reason given above we can say that light must have received these two properties from someone or something whose existence is not contingent upon the existence of space-time and whose existence will not be affected in any way even when space-time is gone.

Atheists sometimes object that there is no clear definition of a god/God. Here I want to say very clearly that God cannot be defined, God's attributes can only be described. If God is the creator of the universe, then from this it follows that before creation God was alone and that there was no one else, nothing else other than God. As universe means space, time, matter and energy, so from this it follows that before creation there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. That means God was neither in any space nor in any time and that God could contain neither any matter nor any energy, because before creation there was no space, no time, no matter and no energy. Being neither in space nor in time God will be thus spaceless and timeless. Containing neither any matter nor any energy God will be thus immaterial and his total energy will be zero. All these directly follow from the statement that God is the creator of the universe. By simple logic it can also be shown that this God being spaceless and timeless will also have the following attributes: God will be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite.

Some believers also say that God is omnipotent and omniscient; he/she/it is all-powerful and all-knowing. But I do not think so. God being the creator of the universe must have necessary power and knowledge for creating it. Otherwise how has God created the universe? But I do not think that solely due to this reason God can be called omnipotent and omniscient.

Thus the complete description of the creator of the universe will be this: God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

Whatever else has been said about this God is just wishful thinking.

Recently I put the following question to an atheist:

‘Can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness, but that is not hard itself?’

His reply was this:

‘That doesn’t make sense.’

Then again I wrote to him:

‘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?’

This made him furious. His angry retort was this:

‘Just how stupid do you think I am, Socrates? Tell me the point, don't try to sell me this scholastical dialectic.’

So I had to say goodbye to him with this:

‘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.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An entity can have the property of timelessness due to two reasons only:
1) If it is not in time:
2) Or, it can have this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it.

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.

Simply put:

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.

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.

In an earlier article1 I have written that God cannot be defined, but that God’s attributes can only be described. And the complete description of this God is this: God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

Here I will show that the existence of anything will ultimately point to this God.

If something exists at all, then it can be shown that that will imply that something also exists that is spaceless and timeless, as otherwise there will be an infinite regress. Now let us start from the earth. Earth exists within the solar system. The solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way galaxy exists within the local cluster of galaxies. This cluster again exists within some super-cluster of galaxies. This super-cluster of galaxies exists within the universe. The universe exists within the multiverse that contains billions of other universes. Cosmologists usually stop at this level, they do not want to go beyond the multiverse. But there is no binding that we will have to stop here at the multiverse level at all. So we will say that this multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains billions of other multiverses. Then we will again say that this super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains billions of other super-multiverses. And so on and on ad infinitum. But is it possible that we can go on like this indefinitely without stopping somewhere? Can there be an infinite regress in this way? So we will have to stop at some level. But at whichever level we will stop, we will have to say that nothing is there beyond this or that level. So if we decide that we will stop at the universe level, then we will have to say that nothing is there beyond the universe. That means the universe as a whole will be neither in any space nor in any time, because there will be nothing outside the universe. If we stop at the multiverse level, then we will have to say that the multiverse as a whole is neither in any space nor in any time, because there will be nothing outside the multiverse. In each case the entity being as a whole neither in space nor in time will be thus spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. This is because all these properties are the default properties of something that is neither in space nor in time.2

Reference:
1. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/535
2. www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/227/264

It is usually claimed by the atheists and the atheistic scientists that there is no evidence for the existence of God. But it is not true that there is no evidence. Actually the fact is that when any such evidence is offered, it is usually ignored by the atheistic community in general.

It has been shown in the special theory of relativity that both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light. As per this theory light can travel even an infinite distance in no time, because this infinite distance will be infinitely contracted to zero distance for light, and to cover zero distance zero time will be needed for light. So long SR is not replaced by some other better theory, we will have to accept that its mathematical equations are correct and that therefore whatever conclusions can be drawn from its equations are also correct.

So, light originates within space and time, but as per SR both space and time become non-existent for light. I have shown in two different articles here1 and here2 that whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time, because in that case there will be an infinite regress.

Here I will give one more simple reason as to why this cause cannot lie within space and time.

Let us assume that both the light and the cause due to which space and time become non-existent for light exist within the same space and time. So when the cause makes space and time non-existent for light, the cause will also be equally affected, because here both the cause and light exist within the same space and time. So, when space and time become non-existent for light, they will also become non-existent for the cause itself. Thus both the light and its cause will have the same characteristics; both of them will be spaceless and timeless. So if the cause lies within space and time, then we will find in nature one more entity other than light that will have the same properties as those of light. But actually we find none, light is the sole entity in nature that has these properties. That means this cause does not lie within space and time; it lies outside space and time.

Even if we find in nature one more entity that has the same properties as those of light, that will not solve our problem. This is because we will now have to ask the same question about the cause itself that we were earlier asking about light: being within space and time, how do both space and time become non-existent for it? But this is the old infinite regress problem and I have already dealt with it here1.

Reference:

1) http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/465/514

2) http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/497/535

It is not that only believers are close-minded; there are lots of atheists and non-believers who are close-minded as well. I will give just one example here.

In one YouTube channel presentation someone argued that God does not exist, because God is neither in space nor in time. For him in order to exist someone or something must have to be in space and time. In reply I wrote to him that there is an instance in nature that something can still exist even if it is neither in space nor in time. In SR it has been shown that both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So long SR is not replaced by some other better theory, we will have to accept that its mathematical equations are correct and that therefore whatever conclusions can be drawn from these equations are also correct.

So as per SR a photon originating in a distant star and coming towards earth will be neither in space nor in time during its total transition period, which may be anything, even billions of years, depending on the distance of the star from the earth. But due to this reason that light is neither in space nor in time during the transition we cannot say that light does not exist, because we can see the star. Twice my comment was deleted. So I posted it for the third time and then only it was answered. The reply was that the mathematics of SR is wrong, because it contradicts our observation. As we can see the light, so it must be in some space-time. So I had to write to him that If he had any new theory that could replace SR, then he should present it to the peers and get it accepted. This comment was also deleted.

So I cannot accept that only believers are close-minded; non-believers can also be close-minded.

About God it is usually said that he/she/it is spaceless and timeless, that he/she/it is beyond space and time, that he/she/it is outside of space and time and that he/she/it is neither in space nor in time. What does all this actually mean? Does it mean that God does not exist? Actually many atheists think so. Some of them have expressed their doubt in this way:

1) Nothing can exist for zero time in zero space;
2) God is nowhere, because God occupies no space. God is never, because God occupies no time. Thus, God does not exist;
3) If someone says that God exists outside of space and time, then that will mean that God never existed in anywhere;
4) Nothing can exist outside time and space;
5) There is no difference between a God that existed for zero time and a God that never existed. Outside time implies zero time;
6) A God that exists outside time cannot interact with stuff inside time;
7) Where was God 5 minutes before he created time and space?

These are some of the comments I have randomly picked up from various YouTube comment sections. So there is a real confusion here. For God to exist, he/she/it must have to be in some space and time, otherwise we cannot say that God exists. This confusion is to be cleared.

Let us suppose that there is a very big hall and that in that hall a balloon is floating. Inside the balloon there are some tiny balloons floating within the space available inside the balloon. The balloon has one peculiar property, it can automatically expand itself. As the balloon expands, the space available within the hall for its movement reduces gradually. Now let us suppose that the balloon expands so much that it fills up the entire space of the hall. So now it will fail to make any movement, because there is no more space left for it inside the hall for making any such movement. So we can now say that the balloon has become spaceless. As the balloon has become spaceless, so it will become timeless also, because time is nothing but sequence of events. When the balloon was smaller in size and when it was possible for it to make movement within the hall, there was sequence of events for it. Earlier it was at some place and later it was at another place, because it was moving continuously within the hall. So there was a moment that was earlier than the present moment and subsequently there was a moment that was later than the present moment. In this way time was generated for it. But when it occupies the entire space of the hall, there will be no time for it, because for it there will be no more movement and thus there will be no before and no after. In this way the balloon will be spaceless and timeless. But does that mean the balloon does not exist? Does that mean the balloon exists in no space for no time? No, it exists in all space for all time. It exists for all time, because being spaceless it has become timeless also and therefore there can never be any next moment for it and thus it can never cease to be.

Now what about the tiny balloons that were floating inside the bigger balloon? As the bigger balloon occupies the entire space of the hall now, so now they will have entire space of the hall for their movement. So for them there will be sufficient space for making movement and as a consequence there will be time as well for them, although for the bigger balloon there will be neither any space nor any time for making any movement. But for that reason we cannot say that the bigger balloon does not exist.

Now let us suppose that the hall is as big as the universe and that God occupies the entire space of the universe. So God will be spaceless and timeless for the reasons given above, but for these reasons we cannot say that God does not exist. Rather we will have to say that God exists in all space for all time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'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.

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:

“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

Here is another quote from a poem by Francis Thompson, a British poet:

“All things by immortal power,
Near and far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star.”2

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.

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:

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

“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

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.

[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 expression that came out of my mouth 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.]

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

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.

Reference:
1. Book: Skeptical Essays, 1928 Edition, Chapter: Philosophy in twentieth century, Page 69.
2. Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913) by Francis Thompson (1859-1907)..
3. http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart-quotes.asp?pg=3
4. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/meistereck149156.html
5. http://www.azquotes.com/quote/588337
6. Book: Wandering Joy: Meister Eckhart's Mystical Philosophy,
By Reiner Schürmann, Page 58.
7. Book: History of Western Philosophy, Chapter: Saint Augustine’s Philosophy and Theosophy, Page 152, Simon and Schuster, New York.
8. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/

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.

An atheist has recently asked me to briefly describe an experiment by means of which God’s existence can be demonstrated. In reply I have to write to him that God’s existence cannot be demonstrated in this way, however God’s presence can be detected. For that purpose we will have to first posit that there is a God. But before positing any God we will have to first define this God, because there are many religions on earth and each religion has its own concept of God. So who's God to posit here? Now when we utter the word ‘God’, what do we mean to say by that word? We mean to say that there is a creator that has created everything. That means for us the word ‘God’ is a synonym for creator. As God is the creator of everything, so before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than God. From this we can logically derive what attributes this creator God can possibly have. I have already described those attributes of God in detail here.1 So here we will posit that there is a God with those attributes only and with no other attributes.

In this connection we will have to remember one thing. If there is really a God, then this God is not the God of this earth only, but the God of the entire universe. So whatever myths have been created about this God by different religions on earth cannot have any value to other civilizations in outer space if they are really there and therefore we cannot, and should not, try to define or describe this God based on any one of these myths.

Now the question comes: how the presence of this God can be detected. For this purpose we will denote the universe by U and God by G. If there is a God, then we will write U+G. Otherwise we will simply write U.

Now if U+G, then it may so happen that the mere presence of G will have some direct effects on U, which effects should not be there if U only and which effects can also be detected by scientific method. It may also so happen that even if U+G, the presence of G will have no effects on U. In the second case although there will be a God, yet we will never be able to know the presence of this God by scientific means. However as I have already written that God’s presence can be detected, so I have already assumed that the mere presence of G has some direct effects on U that can be detected by science.

Now what are the effects that the presence of G will have on U? The following will be the effects:

1) One effect is that due to the presence of G volume of U must be zero. This is due to the fact that we have described G as spaceless and all-pervading at the same time. If G was only spaceless but not all-pervading, or if G was only all-pervading but not spaceless, then we would not have said that volume of U must be zero. But G being spaceless and all-pervading at the same time, volume of U cannot be other than zero. This is because spaceless means no space or zero space, whereas all-pervading means G’s presence at each and every point of U. These two combined will cause the volume of U to be zero.
2) Another effect will be that the distance from any point of space to each and every other point of space must be zero. That means there will be no real space gap between any two points of space chosen arbitrarily. This is also due to the fact that G is all-pervading and spaceless.
3) Another similar effect will be that there will be no real time gap between any two moments of time. This is due to the fact that G is timeless.
4) Space and time will be relative due to the fact that G is spaceless and timeless.

I have already discussed about 2) and 3) elaborately here2 and about 4) here3.

Now let us suppose that scientists have found that all the above effects are really there on U. Will scientists then admit that there is G? No, then they will try to give some excuse. They will then say that all these effects are not due to the presence of G, but due to some other natural reasons. However if they ultimately fail to give any alternative explanation for all the above four, then our explanation will only hold good in each and every case above.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/496/534
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/519/559
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/489/529

Recently I put the following question to two persons both of whom are atheists:

“Can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself?”

Reply from one person was this: “That does not make sense.”

However the second person’s reply was that it is sand. After getting this reply I wrote back to him again:

“So you are saying that sand has the property of hardness although it is not hard itself. As sand is not hard itself and as despite that it has the property of hardness, so do you think it has received this property of hardness from something outside of it?”

Perhaps my reply alarmed him somehow and so he changed his stand immediately. He wrote back to me this:

“I would like you to stop for a moment and think about what you are saying.

“Single grain of sand is hard. On scale of hardness it is about 6-7 I think. But the sand itself, consisting from millions of grains is not that hard.

“So that philosophical thing you were trying to say is just… not relevant I think.”

After getting this reply I further wrote back to him:

“My question to you was this: can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself?

“And your reply was this: sand.

“Although I was shocked by your reply, yet I did not express my shock. Rather I wanted to proceed with whatever you have said as a reply. 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. But if there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then we cannot say the same thing about it that it has the property of hardness because it is hard. In that case we will have to admit that it must have this property of hardness due to some reason or factor lying outside of it.

“Then you made everything clear. You admitted that single grain of sand is hard. So you are also admitting that a thing can have the property of hardness if, and only if, 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.

“Now what I am going to write is for the sake of argument only. I am not asserting anything here.

“Let us now 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.

“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 us the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature.

“Am I clear up to this point?”

The above appeared to him as probability babble and he expressed his impatience to waste time in probability babble.

Now what should be the take of a rational person on this? If there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then can we not conclude from this that that thing is the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature?