Atheists do have some deep basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.

The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:
• There is nothing supernatural; and
• Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.

However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.

In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.

Me
‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’

This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.

The atheist
“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.

Me
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.

The atheist
“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.

“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.

“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.

“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.

Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.

Me
From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.

The atheist
“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.

“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”

In simple terms:
1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
2. The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.
3. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.

“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.

“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.

Me
Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”

But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.

So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant star, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?

Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?

On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?

Here there are only two possibilities:
1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;
2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.

If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.

If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.

Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.

Here the atheist is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:

1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:
2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and
3) Distance is also variable.

Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that math of SR is wrong.

The atheist
So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem?

Me
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time.

The atheist
‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’

That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.

So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time.

Me
A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.

The atheist
‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’

Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.

Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.

‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’

No, just that photons don’t experience time.

‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’

If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.

Me
‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’

So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted.

The atheist
‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’

No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.

‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’

No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete.

Me
There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and
2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.

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 they 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 cannot exist, it is imperative for the scientists to show that no one or nothing in this universe can be spaceless and timeless. Then it can very easily be argued that this God does not exist, because this God is said to be spaceless and timeless but 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 endeavor to show that God of the theistic description cannot exist.

Due to the above two reasons I am not yet convinced that there is no God.

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

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.

Mathematical equations of SR and their implications are very simple to understand; one’s limited intelligence is sufficient for that purpose and not much help from the big peers is required in this case. These equations show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. For light this universe is zero millimeters long and light takes zero time for traversing the entire span of the universe, starting from its one end to the other end. If certain portion of space is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light volume of that space will be zero and time will also stop there. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless and timeless state will obtain. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. That is why it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, so from this it can also be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. Here we are not at all claiming that mathematics of SR shows that there is a God; rather we are merely saying that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. So nobody should misunderstand us here, either intentionally or unintentionally.

This case is exactly similar to the case of the multiverse. Up till now there is no demonstrable evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe. But there is the inflation theory and its mathematical equations. Here scientists claim that the equations of inflation theory suggest that it is highly probable that there are other universes. If equations of inflation theory can suggest that probably there are other universes, then following the path taken by the scientists we can also equally claim here that equations of SR suggest that probably there is a God.

Scientists consider multiverse as highly probable, because mathematics of inflation theory suggests there may be other universes. But these same scientists refuse to consider God as probable, although in this case also there is the mathematical support of SR behind this God. This shows that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth.

If one supports the claim made by the scientists about the probable existence of the multiverse, then how will he/she oppose our claim about the probable existence of God, without being partial and biased?

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

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.

A God who knows how to create a universe will also know how to keep a proof of his existence in the created world. And he will also know how to make his presence known to human individuals.

Now let us suppose that this God has created the universe but that he has failed to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. Neither has he ever revealed his presence to anybody. In such a case no one will ever know that there is such a God and man will believe in as many false gods and goddesses as possible as they have done in the early ages of human history.

Now let us suppose that God has created the universe but that while creating it he has totally forgotten to keep any proof of his existence in the created world. However God has regularly revealed himself to many human beings in all the ages of human history. These human individuals through their personal experience will come to know that there is such a God with such and such attributes and they will also know that all the other gods and goddesses that man has imagined so far are all false gods and goddesses only. In this way human society will slowly move from polytheism to monotheism.

But this situation is not an ideal situation at all, because this will ultimately lead to authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism. The ideal situation is the one where there will be both; there will be the personal experience of human individuals and at the same time there will be one or more proof/s of God’s existence in the created world.

From above I hope it becomes clear that if there is a God at all, then why that God will have to reveal himself to human beings from time to time, as otherwise they will never come to know that there is such a God and as in such a situation they will believe in false gods and goddesses only. At the same time if God does not want to breed authoritarianism and agnosticism/atheism/scepticism, then he will also have to keep a proof of his existence in the created world.

I think I have been able to make my point clear that if there is a God at all, then why it is possible for human beings to personally know there is a God, because in his own interest God will have to reveal himself to man from time to time.

I personally know there is a God. That is why I also know that scientists will never be able to explain everything of nature by natural means.

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 with 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

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

Imagine a deep calm sea, no perturbation anywhere. Now imagine that this sea is disturbed. So now there will be crests as well as troughs.

Now the question is: can there be any crest without any trough?

That means there cannot be any good without any evil;

There cannot be any love without any hate;

There cannot be any compassion without any cruelty;

There cannot be any joy without any sorrow;

There cannot be any beauty without any ugliness;

There cannot be any justice without any injustice;

There cannot be any greatness without any meanness;

There cannot be any life without any death;

There cannot be any virtue without any vice;

Etc.

Deep calm sea without any perturbation is the state before creation. Creation will bring everything along with its own opposite.

Even if it is ultimately established that there is no God, yet that fact alone will not automatically make the current theory for the origin of the universe from nothing a better theory than before.

At least three points can be raised against this theory.

First of all it says that as the total energy of the present universe has been found to be zero, so the entire universe can come from nothing, no god being needed. But I have already shown that this total energy will also be zero if the universe has originated from something, or even if it has been created by some supernatural agent.1,2 That means zero total energy cannot be the only criterion on the basis of which it can be concluded that the universe has originated from nothing. So on the basis of which factor have they concluded that the universe has originated from nothing?

Secondly it claims that everything has originated from nothing. Thus it solves one problem. But at the same time it creates some new problems, because now it will have to provide an explanation as to how the totality of everything always remains nothing, which explanation it fails to provide. It does not explain how the total space-time of an ever-expanding universe always remains zero.3

Thirdly it assumes that quantum laws were already there, but it does not explain whence originated those quantum laws, or in which container were those laws when there was no space-time. One commentator in one YouTube presentation has written very nicely about this problem.4 So I think everyone should read what he has written on this. He has written that in Krauss' hypothesis it is required that reality must have an underlying nature that will 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 will 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.

Actually this origin theory shows that modern day science has gone totally bankrupt. That is why it cannot produce anything better than this half-baked theory that cannot solve one single problem without at the same time creating more problems that it cannot solve. It also shows one more thing. It shows that modern day intelligentsia has sunk so low that it can remain satisfied with such a half-baked theory.

We cannot call that theory a good theory at all which can solve one problem by only creating another problem that it cannot solve. Even as a hypothesis it is a very bad hypothesis indeed.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/404/453
2. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/554
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/425/478
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA5SrJ74Oj4&t=40s

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.

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.

Recently one question was put to me by an atheist regarding the number of god or gods responsible for creating the universe: ‘You can’t even cite any rational criteria for determining how many gods are responsible. You use the word ‘God’ as if there is only one. What is your evidence that there is only one god?’

So what is my evidence that there is only one God?

I have already shown elsewhere1 that if there is a creator of the universe, then that creator cannot be within any space and time, because logic dictates that a creator will always precede his/her creation. Before creation there was no space and time and therefore the creator god was not within any space and time. That means before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than the creator god, because before creation there was no space and time beyond the creator god within which someone or something might exist. Or, we can also say that before creation there was no one else, nothing else beyond the creator god.

Now instead of calling the creator of the universe as the creator god, we can also call him/her the cause of the universe. Or, in brief, we will call it The Cause. Thus The Cause would be such that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else other than The Cause.

Now let us suppose that there were two gods instead of one: god-A and god-B. Now can we say about god-A that before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than god-A? Can we say about god-B that before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than god-B? No, we cannot say so, because before creation there was already god-B beyond god-A and god-A beyond god-B.

But we have already seen above that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else beyond The Cause, because before creation there would be no space and time. So we see that neither god-A nor god-B fulfils the condition for being The Cause, because The Cause would have to be such that before creation there would be no one else, nothing else other than The Cause. So, either god-A is prior to god-B and is the cause of both god-B and the universe, or god-B is prior to god-A and is the cause of both god-A and the universe. But both of them combined cannot be the cause of the universe.

This clearly shows that there can be only one god, not many.

The whole matter can be analyzed from another angle. The situation before creation would have to be such that there would be no space and time before creation. But if there are two gods, then can we say that before creation there was no space and time? No, we cannot say so, because if there are two gods, then both of them would be within some space and time.

Here we cannot claim that god-A is not within any space and time, This is because if god-A is not really within any space and time, then beyond god–A there would be no space and time within which someone or something might exist and therefore there would be no one else, nothing else beyond god–A. But we already know that there was god-B beyond god-A. That means it cannot be said about god-A that it is not within any space and time.

By the same logic it can be shown that god-B is also within some space and time.

So, if there are more than one gods, then space and time would already be there. That will further mean that creation has already taken place. So, again we will have to say that either god-A is prior to god-B and is the cause of both god-B and the universe, or that god-B is prior to god-A and is the cause of both god-A and the universe. But both of them combined cannot be the cause of the universe.

However it must be mentioned here that it is very much possible that both of them together are not within any space-time. But when we consider them individually and separately, both god-A and god-B would be within some space-time.

Reference:
1. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/557#comment-form

Scientists have found that the total energy of the universe is zero. From there they have argued that the universe might have originated from nothing due to quantum energy fluctuation in a void, no God being needed for its creation. But I think zero-energy universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God.

If God is the creator, then he would be prior to the existence of space, time and matter. That is the reason we describe God as spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However one element is missing here: energy. God would be prior to the existence of energy also.

God being prior to space, time, matter and energy would be neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor energy, but something beyond them. That means in God there can be neither any space, nor any time, nor any matter, nor any energy.

If it is now true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then it would be true for God as well. This is because God being the law-giver we should not expect that God would break his own laws very frequently. So God would have to manage the entire creation event with zero energy.

However if the universe is not created, then there is no reason as to why the universe as a whole cannot have total non-zero energy value. As some atheistic scientists claim that quantum laws were always there, so in a similar manner some sort of energy might have been always there. Universe would begin its life with that energy and it would also contain that much of energy as a whole.

So, if the universe is created, then there would be at least one constraint due to which the universe can never have any energy, this constraint being God. In the other case there would be no such constraint and so the universe can freely have total non-zero energy.

Here my questions are two:

1) If quantum laws could have been always there, then why not energy?

2) So, what are the compelling factors due to which even an uncreated universe cannot have total non-zero energy?

Actually we can think of two different situations regarding the beginning of the universe:

Situation 1: There would be no energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe is created by God. Here the universe would start from zero energy and therefore it makes sense that the total energy of the universe would always remain zero, because energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Situation 2: There would be energy before the beginning. This would be the case if the universe originated from a singularity. Here the universe would start from non-zero energy (energy contained in singularity) and therefore it does not make any sense that the total energy of the universe would remain zero in this case also.

The cause that makes space and time to be relative in our universe must lie outside our universe. Otherwise we will have to admit that there was a time when they were not relative, but absolute.

We know that space and time are relative in our universe. But what is the cause that makes them to be relative? Let us say that A is the cause that makes space and time relative. Now regarding A there are two possibilities here:

1) This cause lies within space and time; and

2) it lies outside space and time.

Let us suppose that the cause A lies within space and time. But this possibility is having one inherent problem in it. We say that A is the cause that makes space and time in our universe to be relative, and we also say that A lies within space and time. So when A made its first appearance within space and time, it also caused space and time to be relative for the first time. From that time onward they have remained relative so far. So from this it can be concluded that before the appearance of A within space and time, space and time were not relative; they were absolute. But will the scientists agree that space and time were not always relative, that they were not relative from the very beginning of their existence? But if they say that space and time were relative, and are still relative, from the very moment they came into existence, then they will also have to admit that the cause that makes space and time to be relative in our universe was already there prior to the moment space and time came into existence, that is, prior to the beginning of our universe.

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

In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has asked this question: ‘Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?'

He has also written that if the creator doesn't need a creator, then that would be special pleading. He has also stated that if the creator doesn't need a creator then by extension the universe, which created us, also doesn't need one. So, why should we bother conjuring up an additional step? He has also asked: is it turtles all the way?

Here I enter in the thread.

Me to Atheist:
‘'Who created the creator? Oh, what's that? The creator doesn't need a creator?'

‘You do not know the answer yet? Are you so backdated?

[Then I have given him the reference to my article If God created universe, Who created God?1]

‘There it has been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes and that zero needs no creation.’

The Atheist then asks me as to whether I did even read what he said? He also writes that my response was already preemptively addressed, because if god doesn’t need a creator, then the universe also doesn't need a creator, so why should I bother conjuring up an additional step?

Me to Atheist:
God does not need a creator because it can be shown and it has actually been shown that God is a bunch of several zeroes. Can anybody show that the universe is also a bunch of several zeroes and so universe would also need no creation?

The Atheist here replies that zeroes can't create anything, because it has been shown that anything multiplied by 0 equals 0. He also writes that if god doesn't need a creator, the same applies to the universe.

Me to Atheist:
‘Universe would not need any creator if it can be shown that everything in this universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any outside agent. But the question is: can it be explained in that way? Below is just one problem:

‘One person in one YouTube comment thread has written that the universe is still nothing, because there is as much energy as there is negative energy; so: Energy + - Energy = 0. So basically we still are where we started; the universe is just a more complicated state of nothing.

‘My reply to him was this:

‘If the universe is still nothing, then that will mean that initially the universe was nothing and that it has still remained nothing, because its total energy has always remained zero.

‘But when initially the universe was nothing, it was not that only its energy was zero. Its space, time and matter were also zero. So if the universe still remains nothing, then why should it be that only its total energy remains zero but not its total space-time? What is the logic behind that?

‘So, if the universe still remains nothing, then not only the total energy, but the total space-time of this ever-expanding universe must also always remain zero.

‘But have the scientists like Krauss, Hawking and others provided any explanation as to how this total space-time always remains zero?’

This time The Atheist does not reply. Not getting any reply from him I write to him again.

Me to Atheist:
‘I have mentioned just one problem, but there are other problems also. No scientist can answer whence appeared those quantum mechanical laws without which no cosmological model is complete. In that sense quantum mechanical laws have the same status as that of the theistic God; origin of both remains unexplained and mysterious. However the question ‘who created God?’ can be answered and it has already been answered. Whereas the question ‘who created quantum mechanical laws?’ has not yet been answered.

‘Then there is the fine-tuning problem. There are about 30 numbers within the laws of physics that include the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces, the values of which cannot be predicted by any scientific laws. Rather scientists have to find their values from actual experiments only. If these numbers have slightly different initial values at the big bang, then the world, and life as we know it, would probably never have come into being.

‘The question is: why do these numbers have the values that they have? At present scientists cannot answer this question from within their known physics and they resort to multiverse hypothesis for its explanation. But up till now there is no direct experimental evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe and so at present multiverse has remained a theoretical probability only. But there are some scientists within the scientific community who think that even if multiverse is real, yet multiverse will not help us solve any single problem within our universe, because physics in each and every member of the multiverse would be the same as that of our universe.

‘So long scientists will not be able to solve these problems, their claim that the universe does not need any God will not be trustworthy.

‘You have written that zero cannot create anything. If zero does not have any power to create anything, then how has zero energy created such a vast universe?’

This time The Atheist gives a reply that first of all I need to actually demonstrate such a god. But as because I am saying god has been "demonstrated to be zeroes", which doesn't make any sense, so he is willing to bet that I have been duped into some hippie kool-aid. He also writes that he would suggest actually thinking for a moment who is more likely to have analyzed these things more rigorously, the guy that said god is a sequence of zeroes, who probably hasn't achieved anything in his whole life in regards to his career as a professional, or the elite scientists in the history of the world from around every country that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today.

What follows is my final reply to The Atheist:
‘I have requested you to go through the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 But you have not gone through it. So I will quote here the first paragraph of that article before proceeding further:

‘‘Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give the most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question.’

‘The purpose of quoting this passage here is to show that the same elite scientists that have granted us literally every piece of technology we see around us today have also prepared the path for us believers so that we can argue for the existence of God.

‘Now let us first see what would be the attributes of a creator God.

[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article One True God2 for showing how it can be concluded that a creator God would always be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.]

‘So as per logic a creator God must necessarily have to be spaceless and timeless, because this is the one and the only one logically possible consequence of being the creator of a universe.

‘Now let us see how believers have described their God. About the supernatural God it has been said that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. About the same God it has also been said that he is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial.

‘So it can in no way be denied that God has been described as spaceless and timeless by the believers.

‘Now let us see what science has done here. Science has also given its full support to this logical concept of a creator God by showing as to how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

[Then I have repeated the same argument here that I have given in the article If God created universe, Who created God?1 for showing how a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.]

‘So it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless.

‘Now let us ask ourselves this question: why has science done this? If God is purely imaginary and non-existent, then why is it that science has provided such explanations for the attributes of a purely imaginary and non-existent God? What shall we have to conclude from this? Shall we have to conclude that those highly intelligent persons who have provided these explanations were not intelligent at all and that that was the reason as to why they failed to distinguish between what was actually real and what was purely imaginary? Or shall we have to conclude that this God is objectively real?

‘Not only that. Phenomenon of quantum entanglement has compelled the scientists to conclude that space and time are not fundamental at all and that space and time have emerged from something more fundamental that is spaceless and timeless. Here are two relevant quotes:

‘“If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics…Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.” (Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011)

‘“Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY ... epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities ...” (Personal e-mail to me)

‘We have already seen that God is described as spaceless and timeless. And we now see that scientists are also saying that space and time have somehow emerged from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.

‘So, if there is indeed a God, then at the beginning of everything there would be an entity that would be spaceless and timeless. Scientists have not yet admitted that there is a God. But they have at least admitted this much that space and time are not fundamental entities at all and that the more fundamental entity from which they have emerged is indeed spaceless and timeless.’

Addendum: Has anybody ever thought that if it is true that space and time are not fundamental entities in Physics, but only epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then at the same time it might not be true that the universe has originated from nothing? If space and time are emergent entities only (epiphenomena) arising from other yet more fundamental entities, then were they emergent also when they made their first appearance at the beginning of the universe? Or, were they fundamental entities at that time? If we claim that they have originated from nothing at the beginning of the universe, then they were fundamental entities at the beginning, simply because they have originated from nothing and not from those yet more fundamental entities. If they were fundamental entities at the beginning, then how and when did they become emergent by losing their fundamental nature? However, if they were emergent at the beginning also, then would they not require the prior presence of those fundamental entities from which only they could arise? Being epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities, was it possible for them to arise from nothing?

If my above argument is correct, then it cannot be the case that the universe has originated from nothing, but from those fundamental entities from which only space and time can emerge.

That space and time are emergent would also have one more implication. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be material. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter-all the three of them are so interlinked that where there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. Therefore those fundamental entities cannot be material, because those entities are prior to the emergence of space and time. However it has already been shown that there can be only one single entity in spaceless and timeless condition.3 It means that the entity from which the universe has originated is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

Reference:
1. http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/76/85
2. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/585/632
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/597/644

If an entity is emergent, then in general that will imply these three things:
1) The emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence;
2) The emergent entity (A) cannot emerge from just anything or everything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities only (B); and
3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A.

The first one is simple common sense. For the second one we can give the example of water. We know each water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So water can emerge from the chemical combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom only; water cannot emerge from the chemical combination of any two elements in the periodic table e.g. water cannot emerge from the chemical combination of hydrogen and chlorine or from the chemical combination of carbon and oxygen or from the chemical combination of copper and sulphur.

The above three implications will be true for any emergent entity. So they will be true for emergent spacetime also. But emergent spacetime will imply some more things that will not be true for other emergent entities. What are those special implications of emergent spacetime?

We have already said that an emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence. So emergent spacetime would imply that it has emerged from some entity/entities that was/were not within any spacetime. This implication is very very special for emergent spacetime only; the entity that has emerged (A) and the entity/entities from which it has emerged (B) cannot be within the same spacetime.

In every other case both A and B would be within the same spacetime. In case of spacetime only B would be neither in space nor in time. Scientists are describing it as non-spatiotemporal; in brief we will call it NSE (Non-spatiotemporal Entity/Entities).

Emergent spacetime would also imply some more things. It would imply that the universe cannot have its origin from nothing. The reason that can be given for this is that at the beginning of the universe spacetime also comes into existence. Spacetime being emergent cannot come into existence from nothing; it can emerge from NSE only. So the prior presence of this NSE is a necessity before the beginning of every universe.

NSE would also be eternal and everlasting. Two reasons can be given for this; one is pure reason and the other one is practical reason.

Practical reason: We have already seen that NSE must already be there before the beginning of any universe so that spacetime can also come into existence along with the beginning of the universe. So, if it is the case that big bang has taken place not only once but many many times, that is, if it is the case that the universe has gone through unending cycles of big bang and big crunch, then NSE would also have to be eternally there, because spacetime being emergent cannot emerge from anything else other than NSE. Similarly for every future cycle of big bang and big crunch also the prior presence of this NSE would be required.

Pure reason: There is also one pure reason as to why NSE would be eternal and everlasting. An entity that is not within any spacetime cannot change. Any change can occur either in space or in time. Being not in space we cannot say about NSE that it was at that place earlier and it is at this place now. Being not in time we cannot say about NSE that it was in that state earlier and it is in this state now. Thus NSE will be changeless. An entity that cannot undergo any change can neither cease to be, because ceasing to be is also some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. But for NSE this very next moment will never come, because it is not in time. So NSE can never cease to be; thus it will be eternal and everlasting.

Emergent spacetime has also shattered two myths of the atheists, that nothing can be spaceless and timeless and that nothing can be immaterial. Scientists are already saying that there is something non-spatiotemporal (or, spaceless and timeless) from which spacetime has emerged. This something non-spatiotemporal cannot in any way be material, because GR forbids it.