In one YouTube presentation the question discussed was whether Atheism was Impervious to Evidence. The following thread is from that presentation.

Atheist1

No, atheism is not impervious to evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence for a god, to date nobody has done that, not even once. There has never been any testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence presented for any deity ever.

Me to Atheist1

Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes:

1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges' from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_

2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."
- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

3) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex¬plain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamental¬ly spaceless and timeless physics.

“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time—in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the Uni¬versity of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classi¬cal spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.”
- Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011

4) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”
- Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012

Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts:

That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity. That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that is spaceless, timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.

Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only.

It may so happen that within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent. However, only time can tell whether that will really happen or not.

Atheist2
"Do you know one thing"
I can tell you one thing: the claim you make following that is bunk.

Me to Atheist2
Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science. And here you have just done that which is expected from a dogmatic atheist.

Atheist1 to Me

"Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science."

The only atheist position there is is clear in the word "atheism" it's self. That is we are without theism, "A" - without, "theism" - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. We lack a god belief and/or we lack a conviction in the existence in any deities whatsoever, it's nothing more than that. Explain to me how your claim that scientists "admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent" makes it so atheist denounce science by stating we don't have a god belief? Explain to me the logic in that.

Me to Atheist1

It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons. Out of these several reasons two reasons are that as per atheists nothing can be spaceless and timeless and that nothing can be immaterial. Atheists can no longer deny the existence of god/gods on the basis of these two reasons without denouncing science. The case is closed for them forever.

However there are other reasons also. Does the universe need any god? No, because everything in the universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god/gods. At least this has been claimed by the atheistic scientists in general. But this is not true. There are some controversial cases also. Two such cases are origin of the universe and fine-tuning problem.

Here atheists will say that fine-tuning problem is not at all a problem, because eternal inflation would give rise to infinite number of universes and fine-tuning problem can be solved very easily with multiverse hypothesis. But two scientists have raised serious doubt about the efficacy of multiverse hypothesis for solving the fine-tuning problem.

Ethan Siegel in his article Yes, The Multiverse Is Real, But It Won't Fix Physics1 has written that ‘If cosmic inflation, General Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse likely is real, and we're living in it.’ But he has also added this reminder that ‘Just don't expect it to solve your most burning questions about the Universe. For that, you need physics you can put to an experimental or observable test. Until that day arrives, the consequences of a Multiverse will likely remain in the realm of science fiction: where they presently belong…The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer to absolutely nothing.’

But Hyun Seok Yang in his article Emergent Spacetime: Reality or Illusion?2 is more radical in his approach than Ethan Siegel, because as per him there would be no multiverse at all even if there would be inflation. Inflation theory was developed based on the assumption that spacetime was fundamental. But in case of emergent spacetime there would be no eternal inflation and so, there would be no multiverse.

If multiverse is gone forever due to emergent spacetime, how will the scientists solve the fine-tuning problem without invoking some sort of intelligence behind the beginning of everything?

And what will the atheists do then? Will they still cling to the multiverse hypothesis by denouncing science?

Atheist1 to Me

"It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons."

Well if you actually comprehended my comment I spoke of atheists positions, not reasons. The position being "That is we are without theism, "A" - without, "theism" - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." But since you mention it there IS only one reason, it would be the fact that atheists lack a conviction in God because of insufficient evidence. If you were to PROVE the existence of gods beyond a shadow of a doubt to an atheist then they wouldn't be an atheist anymore because belief isn't a choice.

The claim that you make that atheists can no longer lack the conviction in god or gods without denouncing science on the basis that "scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent" or that our universe is finely tuned is an unbridled and incredibly obvious logical fallacy. Nothing about these two claims PROVE definitively or uncover or point to or even suggest or hint in the slightest to the existence of a god or gods AT ALL, zero, nothing, nada. I challenge you to find me one legitimate piece of scientific literature that is peer reviewed and that is testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable and has been published in a reputable scientific journal that states that deities are real, just one. Until you do so you're nothing but a snake oil salesman making logical fallacies, misrepresenting legitimate science and jumping to moronic conclusions to fit your agenda. I state this one more time, show me one piece of peer reviewed, scientific literature proving gods are real. I'll spoil it for you now, you will not be successful.

Me to Atheist1

Suppose I put some simple questions to you. Will you please answer those questions?

My first question will be: if there has never been any unicorn on this Earth, then should science give any evidence in support of its existence?

Atheist1 to Me

Science has never given evidence of unicorns or Gods/deities because there is no evidence for either. What you presented and asserted was evidence for deities a WAS NOT EVIDENCE FOR DEITIES. Stop wasting my time with nonsense. Now I will ask you show me peer reviewed scientific literature of testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence of god published in a scientific journal. Can you do that?? No? Then you have no evidence for god and you have no reason to believe. Now go away and stop wasting my time.

Me to Atheist1

Do you have a nervous breakdown? Are you having a previous history of hysteria? Otherwise why such a violent reaction against a very simple question from my side?

You have asked about some peer-reviewed evidence for God. May I ask you one question here? Are you still in your infancy that you require constant spoon-feeding from the peers?

Do you know one bitter truth about these peers? These peers are very good in physics, but at the same time they are very bad in philosophy; actually they are some coarse-headed bad logicians. That is why they have taken more than hundred years of time for arriving at a conclusion that they could have arrived at very easily almost hundred years earlier when Einstein has proposed his special theory of relativity. In SR it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. As God has been called spaceless and timeless for thousands of years, so here either science was flawed, or if science could not be flawed, then definitely there was something objectively real in man’s imagination of God; God could not be purely imaginary. If they have argued like that at that time, then they could have very easily come to the conclusion that even if there was no God, still there was something spaceless and timeless in the universe for which SR had provided requisite explanation. So they could have said the same thing hundred years earlier what they are saying now that there is something non-spatiotemporal in the universe.

And you want to depend on these peers for scientific proof of God! I am telling you very frankly that as they have taken almost hundred years for coming to such a simple conclusion, so they will take another hundred or two hundred years for coming to the conclusion that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.

Reference:
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/25/yes-the-multiver...
2. http://arXiv.org/abs/1504.00464

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." – Voltaire

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth; therefore if God did exist, he would have to be abolished.” - Mikhail Bakunin

God cannot be so easily abolished, because even an atheist is now seeing god where there is no mention of god. Below is the story:

Athiest1

I like how you pick apart the idea of timelessness and spacelessness. In the future, however, I think you could get a lot of further traction by pointing out how space and time are not even separate entities unto themselves. General relativity is very clear that space and time are linked into a single entity called spacetime. We also know that the nature of spacetime is not very well understood, and that there are all sorts of wacky things it could transform into or causally derive from---especially in the realm of ultra high energy and density like the Big Bang. So whenever these Christians speak of the universe just popping into existence, they are demonstrating very clearly that they simply don't understand the fundamental nature of spacetime and causality.

Me to Athiest1

Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes:

1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges' from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_

2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."
- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

3) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”
- Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012

Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts:

That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity.

That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.

Atheist2 to Me

"That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial."

Lol. xxxxxxx bullshit

Me to Atheist2

It is not me but the scientists working with the quantum theory of gravity who are saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that will mean that there is something more fundamental than space-time from which space-time has emerged. This something more fundamental than space-time cannot be within any space-time because there cannot be any space-time prior to the emergence of space-time. This is nothing but simple common sense.

Being not within any space-time it cannot be material, because GR forbids it.

So, do you lack simple common sense and are you also anti-science that my argument appears to you as xxxxxxx bullshit?

Atheist3 to Me

I think he's upset because your confirmation bias is showing.

You've skipped over this key part: "What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach."

You want to see it as fitting the definition of your god, but that's not what they're saying. They're saying there's something 'below' our universe that has its own manifestation of energy. They're saying it is not OUR universe, but it still has laws nonetheless, only these laws dictate the manifestation of energy into universes.

It is by no means evidence of a creator. If you did not intend to imply that, my apologies, but the correlation seemed strong.

Atheist2 to Me

"If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that will mean that there is something more fundamental than space-time from which space-time has emerged" Citation xxxxxxx needed. Religious bullshit all over.

Me to Atheist3

You have written: "You want to see it as fitting the definition of your god, but that's not what they are saying."

You have also written: "It is by no means evidence of a creator."

Can you show by any direct quote where I have mentioned god or a creator in my first comment? So, from where have you brought all these entities and accusing me unnecessarily?

In my comment I have only tried to show what would be the logical consequences if spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. If my analysis appears to someone as xxxxxxx religious bullshit, then I will say 21st century physics is xxxxxxx religious bullshit that says that we will have to abandon the notion that spacetime is fundamental.

Atheist3 to Me

You said, "...spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial." This is a common definition for a christian god.

Me to Atheist3

But the Christian God has got consciousness. Have I written in my comment that the entity from which space-time has emerged is a conscious entity?

Atheist3 to Me

As I stated before, if you did not mean to imply that, my apologies. You've asked for a reason for my interpretation of your intent, and I gave it to you. Maybe you can grow from this by understanding how other people may interpret your communications, and shape them accordingly.

Me to Atheist3

It is okay.

However I want to say one thing here. Actually theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only.

That is the reason as to why my final conclusion appears to you so similar to the definition of the theistic god.

Here the story ends.

Now we can say that the new physics of emergent spacetime has given such a marvelous twist to the ultimate reality that even an atheist now mistakes it for god.

In an earlier article ‘Is the total energy of the universe zero?’1 I have already shown as to why the total energy of the universe would be zero. But there is one deep metaphysical reason that surpasses all the earlier reasons, as to why this total energy can never be other than zero.

In another article ‘Existence of anything can ultimately point to God’2 I have also shown that if anything exists at all then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

So our starting point would be this: If anything exists, if even a single speck of dust exists, then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time.

Here it may be asked: why should we stop an infinite regress? There is one practical reason as to why we should stop it. If we decide that instead of stopping it we would rather go up to infinity, then we would never be able to reach this present moment from that infinite past moment, because infinite time is such that it can never be bridged. If infinite time can be bridged, then it is not an infinite time, rather a finite time only.

So our conclusion is this: Ultimate reality – whatever that ultimate reality may be - can never be within any space and time, Ultimate reality is that reality beyond which there would be absolutely nothing.

Ultimate reality will be thus spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it cannot be material. This is as per GR. GR has shown that space, time and matter are interlinked. So either all the three of them would be there together or none of them would be there. As ultimate reality is not within any space and time so there would be only the ultimate reality and no space and time. As there would be no space and time, so the ultimate reality cannot be material.

Ultimate reality being thus immaterial its total energy would be zero. This is because matter and energy are equivalent and so, zero matter would mean zero energy.

As ultimate reality is the source from which everything has originated, so the total energy of the universe would also be zero, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

This also shows as to why space and time can neither be fundamental, because the source which has given birth to space and time does not contain any space and time.

Reference:
1. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/503
2. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537

Recently an atheist has written that if there is a god and if this god affects our reality, then he would be a part of nature. So we will be able to measure the effects of this god in our reality, even if we cannot understand them. But until now we have not measured anything attributable to such a god.

But it is definitely not true that we have not measured anything attributable to such a god. So I have to present my argument to him as to why I think his contention regarding this is not true. Below it is:

God is not only described as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but also as spaceless and timeless. So, if there is such a God, then there would be a permanent state of spacelessness and timelessness along with the universe. If there is such a permanent state of spacelessness and timelessness, then space and time cannot be absolute. For space and time to be absolute, they should have the same values in each and every case without any exception. But if there is such a permanent state, then in one particular case space and time would have null values and in every other case they would have non-zero values. In this way they would become relative. Scientists have also found that space and time are indeed relative
.
Here comes another atheist who says that if God is spaceless, then nowhere does he exist and that if he is timeless then at no time does he exist. So if I cannot show it exists, then they have good reason not to believe it exists.

In reply I have to write to him that whatever exists within the universe exists within the space and time of the universe. But can we say within which space and time the universe as a whole exists?

And I have to explain to him in detail as to why this cannot be said about the universe that it is within any space and time. This is because although we know very well that the universe is expanding, yet as per the cosmologists the truth is that it is not expanding into anything, which means the universe as a whole is not embedded within any higher space and time. Although this universe is not within any space and time, yet for that reason we do not say that the universe does not exist.

I also gave him one thought for him to ponder over.

Thought for the day: We know that space and time are relative. But have we ever asked from when they were relative? Were they relative from the very beginning of their existence? If so, then the cause due to which they were relative must already be present there before the beginning of space and time, that is, before the beginning of the universe.

But if we say that this cause is within the universe only and not outside of it, then space and time would only be relative from the moment this cause would make its first appearance within the universe. Before that space and time would remain absolute.

But this does not convince him at all and so he says that he is still waiting for any evidence of this God. As per him even after for more than 2000 years of God-talk, still there is no evidence.

So I have to repeat to him that I have already shown how the presence of a spaceless and timeless God would make space and time relative in our universe and that scientists have also found that space and time are indeed relative.

Then again I show him how his argument that God does not exist as he is not within any space and time has already been defeated, because if it is accepted as true that God does not exist because he is not within any space and time, then for that very same reason we will also have to accept that the universe does not exist, because as per the cosmologists also neither is the universe within any space and time. And if in one case we admit that the universe does exist but if in another case we refuse to admit the same, then that will only show that we are using some sort of double standard which is not a very good thing to promote or support.

I have also shown which problem might arise if the existence of this God is denied, because in that case there would be a period during which space and time would remain absolute.

I have also written that scientists are the only persons who can specifically say whether space and time were relative from the very beginning of their existence, or whether there was a brief period during which they were absolute. However, if it is true that they were relative from the very beginning, then the cause due to which they were relative must predate the beginning of the universe.

And I have to write to him that up to this I have made my point very clear.

This time the atheist becomes silent.

So the conclusion that can be drawn from the above discussion is this: If space and time are relative from the very beginning of their existence, then the cause due to which they are relative must be prior to the beginning of the universe.

In one YouTube comment thread I have written the following to a theist:

Atheists very frequently ask this question: If God created everything then who created God? If one answers their question by saying that God needs no creation, then their usual reply would be that it is some sort of special pleading, because if everything needs creation, then why not God?

But actually it is not any sort of special pleading; rather it shows how unintelligent atheists are. Due to their lack of intelligence they fail to understand that a cause that is the end-cause in a series of other causes cannot itself have a cause, because in that case it would no longer remain an end-cause. Rather it would become one of the middle causes only. An end-cause can never have any further cause. This is simple logic.

If an entity, the existence of which has been posited in order to stop an infinite regress, needs a cause itself, then it will fail to serve its purpose, e.g. stopping an infinite regress. So, what is the purpose of positing its existence if it cannot stop that regress? Better allow the regress.

Here one atheist comes into the picture and replies that the so called "infinite regress" problem cannot be solved by a god in any way.

So I have to reply to him that it is not true that the "infinite regress" problem cannot be solved by a god. Thanks to Stephen Hawking the question 'Who created God?' has already been answered at least ten years earlier.

He replies that a god cannot solve the problem, because a god is subject to the same problem. A god's thinking and acting (deciding) are subject to infinite regress because they are things which require causes. A god is not nothing.

As per him my confusion lies in my automatic unfounded assumption that there had to be stasis before motion. Just like when people assume without foundation that there had to be nothing, before there was something.

He also writes that if motion is a prerequisite for what is, then there is no reason not to assume that the nature of existence is perpetual change. Adding a mind only creates an infinite regress and many paradoxes.

This time I point out to him that his reply shows that he is ignorant of many things. Stephen Hawking in his book 'A Brief History of Time' has given us a clue regarding how this infinite regress problem can be solved. The clue is that if we can somehow arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised and that there will be no infinite regress.

After getting this clue from him it has been possible by me to show that in God totality of everything is zero and that therefore God will need no creation. This shows infinite regress is not at all a problem anymore in case of God.

But my reply fails to convince him. He replies that a god must be comprised of something and that otherwise it is nothing. As per him I have assumed, based on an extremely narrow interpretation of an extremely tentative scientific hypothesis, based on wholly inadequate data, that there was nothing before our universe. Even so, I have contradicted myself, when I have said that a god was here before. A god, by definition is not nothing. I am trying to have it both ways.

He also adds that even if there were such a thing as a god, there would have to be some kind of mechanism by which it does whatever it does. If it is not made of something, it is nothing (less than imaginary).The supernatural by definition is just another form of natural, but it's not nothing.

He knows that the findings of physics are mind bending, but it is also true that science is still looking for the nature of reality. If I wish to throw up my hands and say: "It was just magic", I am welcome to, but even magic is not nothing. Even magic, is subject to infinite regress.

I have written: "....God ....is zero..." But that's nothing. Perhaps I have answered my own question by saying that God is zero.

My final reply to him was this:

His reply very nicely explains as to why all the other ancient civilizations failed to invent zero, whereas it was possible by Indian civilization only. This is because in ancient India, and in India only, there was the philosophical concept of Nirvana, which is a physical state where everything we know of, comes to an end. Has he ever thought where computer science would have been now if zero was not invented by an unknown Indian? So he should not try to belittle the philosophical concept that made possible the invention of zero. Rather he should try to understand what it is.

There was no further reply from him.

Invited talk at Water Conference 2018 in Sofia, Bulgaria: https://youtu.be/nBiFMWmwaLM?t=9232

In an earlier article ‘Existence of anything can ultimately point to God’1 I have already shown that if anything exists at all then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

The above shows that the ultimate reality - whatever that ultimate reality may be - cannot be within any space and time. So the ultimate reality will always be spaceless and timeless and it will be so simply by default, uncaused. It would be uncaused, because being the ultimate reality there would be absolutely nothing beyond it that could have been the cause of it. Everything else other than the ultimate reality would be within some space and time and so none of them would be spaceless and timeless.

Now the question is: Can there be an infinite regress in nature? Have we done the correct thing here by stopping an infinite regress? Here nature has given its verdict very clearly regarding the infinite regress: Nature abhors infinite regress.

I have also stated earlier2 that scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all and that they have emerged from some non-spatiotemporal entity.

So what we have shown above by logic alone that if anything exists at all and if we do not allow infinite regress, then ultimately there would be something spaceless and timeless is also now supported by scientific observation that there is something non-spatiotemporal in nature from which space and time have emerged.

Here we should mention that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is the new scientific term for the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’. Theories of relativity have taught the scientists that space and time are not two separate entities, rather space and time combined should be treated as one single entity: spacetime. So instead of saying ‘spaceless and timeless’ they are now saying ‘non-spatiotemporal’. But the meaning remains the same in both the cases; the particular entity is not within any space and time.

At least two reasons can be given as to why this spaceless and timeless/non-spatiotemporal entity (NSE) should precede the beginning of the universe:

1) One reason is that space and time are relative and that there is no evidence that they were absolute at any time. So we will have to conclude from this that they were always relative, that is, they were relative from the very beginning of their existence. In that case the cause due to which they are relative must already be present there before the beginning of space and time i.e. before the beginning of the universe.

2) The other reason is that space and time are not only relative, but emergent as well. An emergent entity cannot emerge from just anything, or everything, or nothing. It can emerge from some particular entity or entities only. Space and time can emerge from NSE only. So, prior presence of this NSE is absolutely necessary before the beginning of the universe in order that space and time can emerge from it at the beginning of the universe.

Now, is there any evidence that NSE is also conscious?

It has already been stated earlier that the ultimate reality is the only entity that would be spaceless and timeless, because being the ultimate reality it would not be within any space and time. Everything else would be within space and time and so they cannot be spaceless and timeless. However there is only one single exception here: light. Light is within the space-time of the universe and despite that light is spaceless and timeless. As per SR the distance from the place of origin of light to its ultimate destination is zero and time taken for light to arrive at its destination from its place of origin is also zero. So as per SR light occupies zero space for zero time within the universe. This is as good as saying that light is neither in space nor in time.

But it cannot be said about light that it is spaceless and timeless by default, because light is within space and time. So, if it is spaceless and timeless, then this must have been caused by something else. This something else can only be the ultimate reality, because it is the only other entity that is spaceless and timeless and that also by default only.

Now let us take two spheres; one sphere is extremely hot and the other one is extremely cold. If the two spheres are kept side by side with a little gap between them, then the cold sphere will also be somehow heated up after some time due to the heat dissipated in its surroundings from the hot sphere. Here we need not have to assume that the hot sphere is conscious and that it has some sort of intention, wish or desire to make the cold sphere hot and so it willingly transfers some of its body-heat to the cold sphere. No, nothing of the sort. Whatever would be in the vicinity of the hot sphere will be automatically heated up due to the heat dissipated from the hot sphere. There is no need of any conscious effort here.

Now let us take another two spheres; this time one sphere is spaceless and timeless whereas the other one is not. Here also we can think that the spaceless and timeless sphere will automatically make the other sphere spaceless and timeless, because the attributes of spacelessness and timelessness will flow from it to its surroundings and whatever would be in its vicinity would become spaceless and timeless; no consciousness being needed here also. If this can really so happen, then we will not need any God at all. But the question is: can this really so happen? Can one spaceless and timeless entity make another entity spaceless and timeless in this way? What is the actual mechanism needed here?

So whether there is a God or not will ultimately depend on how scientists solve the above problem. If scientists can show that there is a natural way as to how one spaceless and timeless entity can bestow its own attributes of spacelessness and timelessness on another entity, then we need not have to think that this universe needs any God. However their failure here will mean that the ultimate reality is a conscious entity.

Reference:
1. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537
2. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/567

From special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. And from general theory of relativity we come to know that space, time and matter are interlinked and that there cannot be any space and time without matter. As matter and energy are equivalent, so we can also say here that there cannot be any space and time (or spacetime) without energy.

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.’1

Here we see what is stated in theory is also supported by sound observation.

Below are five links where it has been shown mathematically that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/368258/pdf (V. Faraoni and F. I. Cooperstock)
2) http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332010000100001&script=sci_a... (A. A. Sousa; J. S. Moura; R. B. Pereira)
3) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-vii-more-about-zer... (Aron Wall)
4) http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf (Marcelo Samuel Berman)
5) http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/all_zilch_much_ado_about_noth... (Johannes Koelman)

Below are another six links where also it has been very clearly stated that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ (Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff)
2) http://mxplx.com/meme/2098/ (Stephen Hawking)
3) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf719034..html
(Richard P Feynman)
4) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936 (Lawrence Krauss)
5) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/is-the-universe-a-free-l... (Paul Davies)
6) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternit... (Aron Wall)

So we can with some confidence say that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero.

So far we have come to know two things:

1) There cannot be any space and time without energy; and
2) The total energy of the universe is zero.

Now we want to know as to whether there is any spacetime outside our universe. If we claim that there is, then the question is: Which energy would justify the existence of that spacetime? This is because the universe as a whole does not have any energy. So this universe cannot justify the existence of any spacetime outside it, because without energy there cannot be any spacetime. So it is very much doubtful as to whether there is any spacetime at all outside our universe. As the total energy of the universe has always remained zero, so it is also very much doubtful as to whether there was any spacetime outside our universe at any time. This is as per the knowledge acquired from the present universe.

If it is still argued by anybody else that there could be other kinds of spacetime outside our known spacetime about which we do not know anything, then our question to that person will be this: From where has she acquired the knowledge that there can be spacetime without energy? Is it from the present universe? Or is it from some supernatural source? Or is it her own intuition?

If there cannot be any spacetime outside our universe, then can there be other universes beyond our universe?

Reference:
1. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

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.

There is one deep philosophical reason as to why spacetime cannot be fundamental, because in that case there would be an infinite regress. I have already discussed it here.1

Reference:
1. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537

In one YouTube presentation the question discussed was whether Atheism was Impervious to Evidence. The following thread is from that presentation.

Atheist1

No, atheism is not impervious to evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence for a god, to date nobody has done that, not even once. There has never been any testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence presented for any deity ever.

Me to Atheist1

Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes:

1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges' from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_

2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."
- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

3) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex¬plain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamental¬ly spaceless and timeless physics.

“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time—in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the Uni¬versity of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classi¬cal spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.”
- Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011

4) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”
- Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012

Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts:

That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity. That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that is spaceless, timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.

Theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only.

It may so happen that within some fifty or hundred years from now on scientists will be again driven to the conclusion, and this time also they will be forced by the circumstances only, that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent. However, only time can tell whether that will really happen or not.

Atheist2
"Do you know one thing"
I can tell you one thing: the claim you make following that is bunk.

Me to Atheist2
Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science. And here you have just done that which is expected from a dogmatic atheist.

Atheist1 to Me

"Once scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, now atheists can no longer hold their position without denouncing science."

The only atheist position there is is clear in the word "atheism" it's self. That is we are without theism, "A" - without, "theism" - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. We lack a god belief and/or we lack a conviction in the existence in any deities whatsoever, it's nothing more than that. Explain to me how your claim that scientists "admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent" makes it so atheist denounce science by stating we don't have a god belief? Explain to me the logic in that.

Me to Atheist1

It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons. Out of these several reasons two reasons are that as per atheists nothing can be spaceless and timeless and that nothing can be immaterial. Atheists can no longer deny the existence of god/gods on the basis of these two reasons without denouncing science. The case is closed for them forever.

However there are other reasons also. Does the universe need any god? No, because everything in the universe, including its origin also, can be explained by natural means without invoking any kind of god/gods. At least this has been claimed by the atheistic scientists in general. But this is not true. There are some controversial cases also. Two such cases are origin of the universe and fine-tuning problem.

Here atheists will say that fine-tuning problem is not at all a problem, because eternal inflation would give rise to infinite number of universes and fine-tuning problem can be solved very easily with multiverse hypothesis. But two scientists have raised serious doubt about the efficacy of multiverse hypothesis for solving the fine-tuning problem.

Ethan Siegel in his article Yes, The Multiverse Is Real, But It Won't Fix Physics1 has written that ‘If cosmic inflation, General Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse likely is real, and we're living in it.’ But he has also added this reminder that ‘Just don't expect it to solve your most burning questions about the Universe. For that, you need physics you can put to an experimental or observable test. Until that day arrives, the consequences of a Multiverse will likely remain in the realm of science fiction: where they presently belong…The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer to absolutely nothing.’

But Hyun Seok Yang in his article Emergent Spacetime: Reality or Illusion?2 is more radical in his approach than Ethan Siegel, because as per him there would be no multiverse at all even if there would be inflation. Inflation theory was developed based on the assumption that spacetime was fundamental. But in case of emergent spacetime there would be no eternal inflation and so, there would be no multiverse.

If multiverse is gone forever due to emergent spacetime, how will the scientists solve the fine-tuning problem without invoking some sort of intelligence behind the beginning of everything?

And what will the atheists do then? Will they still cling to the multiverse hypothesis by denouncing science?

Atheist1 to Me

"It is not that there is only one reason due to which atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of god/gods; there are several reasons."

Well if you actually comprehended my comment I spoke of atheists positions, not reasons. The position being "That is we are without theism, "A" - without, "theism" - a belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." But since you mention it there IS only one reason, it would be the fact that atheists lack a conviction in God because of insufficient evidence. If you were to PROVE the existence of gods beyond a shadow of a doubt to an atheist then they wouldn't be an atheist anymore because belief isn't a choice.

The claim that you make that atheists can no longer lack the conviction in god or gods without denouncing science on the basis that "scientists have admitted that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent" or that our universe is finely tuned is an unbridled and incredibly obvious logical fallacy. Nothing about these two claims PROVE definitively or uncover or point to or even suggest or hint in the slightest to the existence of a god or gods AT ALL, zero, nothing, nada. I challenge you to find me one legitimate piece of scientific literature that is peer reviewed and that is testable, repeatable, falsifiable, independently verifiable and has been published in a reputable scientific journal that states that deities are real, just one. Until you do so you're nothing but a snake oil salesman making logical fallacies, misrepresenting legitimate science and jumping to moronic conclusions to fit your agenda. I state this one more time, show me one piece of peer reviewed, scientific literature proving gods are real. I'll spoil it for you now, you will not be successful.

Me to Atheist1

Suppose I put some simple questions to you. Will you please answer those questions?

My first question will be: if there has never been any unicorn on this Earth, then should science give any evidence in support of its existence?

Atheist1 to Me

Science has never given evidence of unicorns or Gods/deities because there is no evidence for either. What you presented and asserted was evidence for deities a WAS NOT EVIDENCE FOR DEITIES. Stop wasting my time with nonsense. Now I will ask you show me peer reviewed scientific literature of testable, falsifiable, repeatable, demonstrable, concrete, independently verifiable evidence of god published in a scientific journal. Can you do that?? No? Then you have no evidence for god and you have no reason to believe. Now go away and stop wasting my time.

Me to Atheist1

Do you have a nervous breakdown? Are you having a previous history of hysteria? Otherwise why such a violent reaction against a very simple question from my side?

You have asked about some peer-reviewed evidence for God. May I ask you one question here? Are you still in your infancy that you require constant spoon-feeding from the peers?

Do you know one bitter truth about these peers? These peers are very good in physics, but at the same time they are very bad in philosophy; actually they are some coarse-headed bad logicians. That is why they have taken more than hundred years of time for arriving at a conclusion that they could have arrived at very easily almost hundred years earlier when Einstein has proposed his special theory of relativity. In SR it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. As God has been called spaceless and timeless for thousands of years, so here either science was flawed, or if science could not be flawed, then definitely there was something objectively real in man’s imagination of God; God could not be purely imaginary. If they have argued like that at that time, then they could have very easily come to the conclusion that even if there was no God, still there was something spaceless and timeless in the universe for which SR had provided requisite explanation. So they could have said the same thing hundred years earlier what they are saying now that there is something non-spatiotemporal in the universe.

And you want to depend on these peers for scientific proof of God! I am telling you very frankly that as they have taken almost hundred years for coming to such a simple conclusion, so they will take another hundred or two hundred years for coming to the conclusion that life, mind and consciousness are indeed fundamental and not emergent.

Reference:
1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/25/yes-the-multiver...
2. http://arXiv.org/abs/1504.00464

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." – Voltaire

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth; therefore if God did exist, he would have to be abolished.” - Mikhail Bakunin

God cannot be so easily abolished, because even an atheist is now seeing god where there is no mention of god. Below is the story:

Athiest1

I like how you pick apart the idea of timelessness and spacelessness. In the future, however, I think you could get a lot of further traction by pointing out how space and time are not even separate entities unto themselves. General relativity is very clear that space and time are linked into a single entity called spacetime. We also know that the nature of spacetime is not very well understood, and that there are all sorts of wacky things it could transform into or causally derive from---especially in the realm of ultra high energy and density like the Big Bang. So whenever these Christians speak of the universe just popping into existence, they are demonstrating very clearly that they simply don't understand the fundamental nature of spacetime and causality.

Me to Athiest1

Do you know one thing? Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some relevant quotes:

1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges' from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich_

2) Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, “Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by.” Fields medalist Edward Witten also thought that space and time may be “doomed.” Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."
- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

3) “There aren’t many things in quantum gravity that everyone agrees on,” says Eleanor Knox, a philosopher at King’s College London who specializes in the philosophy of physics. “Yet the one thing many people seemed to agree on in quantum gravity was that we were going to have to cope with space and time not being fundamental.”
- Are Space and Time Fundamental? – The nature of reality - PBS by Kate Becker, Mar 2012

Now what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts:

That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity.

That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial.

Atheist2 to Me

"That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However it can be shown that only one entity be there in spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial."

Lol. xxxxxxx bullshit

Me to Atheist2

It is not me but the scientists working with the quantum theory of gravity who are saying that spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that will mean that there is something more fundamental than space-time from which space-time has emerged. This something more fundamental than space-time cannot be within any space-time because there cannot be any space-time prior to the emergence of space-time. This is nothing but simple common sense.

Being not within any space-time it cannot be material, because GR forbids it.

So, do you lack simple common sense and are you also anti-science that my argument appears to you as xxxxxxx bullshit?

Atheist3 to Me

I think he's upset because your confirmation bias is showing.

You've skipped over this key part: "What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach."

You want to see it as fitting the definition of your god, but that's not what they're saying. They're saying there's something 'below' our universe that has its own manifestation of energy. They're saying it is not OUR universe, but it still has laws nonetheless, only these laws dictate the manifestation of energy into universes.

It is by no means evidence of a creator. If you did not intend to imply that, my apologies, but the correlation seemed strong.

Atheist2 to Me

"If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that will mean that there is something more fundamental than space-time from which space-time has emerged" Citation xxxxxxx needed. Religious bullshit all over.

Me to Atheist3

You have written: "You want to see it as fitting the definition of your god, but that's not what they are saying."

You have also written: "It is by no means evidence of a creator."

Can you show by any direct quote where I have mentioned god or a creator in my first comment? So, from where have you brought all these entities and accusing me unnecessarily?

In my comment I have only tried to show what would be the logical consequences if spacetime is not fundamental but emergent. If my analysis appears to someone as xxxxxxx religious bullshit, then I will say 21st century physics is xxxxxxx religious bullshit that says that we will have to abandon the notion that spacetime is fundamental.

Atheist3 to Me

You said, "...spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that was spaceless, timeless (or, non-spatiotemporal) and immaterial." This is a common definition for a christian god.

Me to Atheist3

But the Christian God has got consciousness. Have I written in my comment that the entity from which space-time has emerged is a conscious entity?

Atheist3 to Me

As I stated before, if you did not mean to imply that, my apologies. You've asked for a reason for my interpretation of your intent, and I gave it to you. Maybe you can grow from this by understanding how other people may interpret your communications, and shape them accordingly.

Me to Atheist3

It is okay.

However I want to say one thing here. Actually theistic belief has two parts. In one part theists hold that life, mind and consciousness were already there before the beginning of the universe, because before the beginning there was God and God is life, mind and consciousness itself. In the second part they hold that there was no space and time before the beginning, because before the beginning there was God and that God is spaceless and timeless. So as per the theistic belief life, mind and consciousness are fundamental, because they were already there before the beginning of anything, but space and time are not, because there was no space and time before the beginning. Up till now scientists have refused to acknowledge the first part of the theistic belief as true and they still hold that life, mind and consciousness are emergent entities only. But forced by the circumstances they have been driven to the conclusion that the second part of the theistic belief is essentially true, that space and time are not fundamental, but emergent only.

That is the reason as to why my final conclusion appears to you so similar to the definition of the theistic god.

Here the story ends.

Now we can say that the new physics of emergent spacetime has given such a marvelous twist to the ultimate reality that even an atheist now mistakes it for God.

In an earlier article ‘Is the total energy of the universe zero?’1 I have already shown as to why the total energy of the universe would be zero. But there is one deep metaphysical reason that surpasses all the earlier reasons, as to why this total energy can never be other than zero.

In another article ‘Existence of anything can ultimately point to God’2 I have also shown that if anything exists at all then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

So our starting point would be this: If anything exists, if even a single speck of dust exists, then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time.

Here it may be asked: why should we stop an infinite regress? There is one practical reason as to why we should stop it. If we decide that instead of stopping it we would rather go up to infinity, then we would never be able to reach this present moment from that infinite past moment, because infinite time is such that it can never be bridged. If infinite time can be bridged, then it is not an infinite time, rather a finite time only.

There is one more reason as to why there cannot be an infinite regress of any natural cause. A natural cause (A) that can bring the universe into existence through one step (cause and effect) only is more efficient than the natural cause (B) that would require at least two steps for doing the same. Conversely we can say that B is less efficient than A, because B requires two steps whereas in a similar situation A requires one step only. So a natural cause that would require infinite number of steps for bringing the universe into existence would be infinitely less efficient than A. A cause that is infinitely less efficient has practically zero efficiency, because inverse of infinity is zero. A cause that has zero efficiency cannot bring anything into existence, not to say a universe.

[The truth that there can never be an infinite regress because no causal chain can extend up to infinity can be called “Truth of all truths”, because from this basic truth other truths can be derived.]

So our conclusion is this: Ultimate reality – whatever that ultimate reality may be - can never be within any space and time. Ultimate reality is that reality beyond which there would be absolutely nothing.

Ultimate reality will be thus spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it cannot be material. This is as per GR. GR has shown that space, time and matter are interlinked. So either all the three of them would be there together or none of them would be there. As ultimate reality is not within any space and time so there would be only the ultimate reality and no space and time. As there would be no space and time, so the ultimate reality cannot be material.

Ultimate reality being thus immaterial its total energy would be zero. This is because matter and energy are equivalent and so, zero matter would mean zero energy.

As ultimate reality is the source from which everything has originated, so the total energy of the universe would also be zero, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

However, the above does not give us the reason as to why the total energy of the universe should be zero; rather we have to find out merely by observation that its total energy is zero, because by observation only we can come to know that space, time and matter are interlinked. But if we assume that the universe has been created by a supernatural agent, then we will get that ultimate reason as to why its total energy cannot be other than zero. This has already been explained by me here.3 However I will very briefly repeat my arguments here.

1) God being the creator would be prior to the creation of the universe;

2) Universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy;

3) As God is prior to the creation of energy, so God cannot contain any energy;

4) So neither the universe can contain any energy, because universe cannot have more energy than the source from which it has originated.

I have already said it earlier4 and again I am saying it here that only a created universe gives us at least one particular reason as to why its total energy cannot be other than zero. But an uncreated universe gives us absolutely no reason why its total energy should also be zero.

This also shows as to why space and time can neither be fundamental, because the source from which space and time have originated does not contain any space and time.

Now we can summarize the whole thing:

1) There can never be an infinite regress, because in that case ultimately nothing would exist;

2) But we know something exists;

3) So we must stop this infinite regress by any means whenever and wherever we will encounter such a regress;

4) But in order to stop this infinite regress we would have to posit the existence of a spaceless and timeless entity that would stop this regress;

5) Denying the existence of this spaceless and timeless entity would mean we are admitting there is an infinite regress;

6) That would further mean we are admitting nothing exists;

7) As it is contradictory to our experience that nothing exists, so we are ultimately compelled to admit that a spaceless and timeless entity also necessarily exists that stops the infinite regress;

8) This spaceless and timeless entity is the ultimate reason why anything exists;

9) Although it is the cause behind everything that exists, but itself it is not caused by anything;

10) Being the ultimate reality, it would be the end-point of all existence. So there would be absolutely nothing beyond it that could have been the cause of it.

Now this much is left for us to show as to whether this spaceless and timeless entity is also a conscious entity.

Reference:
1. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/503
2. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537
3. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/554
4. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/560

Recently an atheist has written that if there is a god and if this god affects our reality, then he would be a part of nature. So we will be able to measure the effects of this god in our reality, even if we cannot understand them. But until now we have not measured anything attributable to such a god.

But it is definitely not true that we have not measured anything attributable to such a god. So I have to present my argument to him as to why I think his contention regarding this is not true. Below it is:

God is not only described as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but also as spaceless and timeless. So, if there is such a God, then there would be a permanent state of spacelessness and timelessness along with the universe. If there is such a permanent state of spacelessness and timelessness, then space and time cannot be absolute. For space and time to be absolute, they should have the same values in each and every case without any exception. But if there is such a permanent state, then in one particular case space and time would have null values and in every other case they would have non-zero values. In this way they would become relative. Scientists have also found that space and time are indeed relative.

Here comes another atheist who says that if God is spaceless, then nowhere does he exist and that if he is timeless then at no time does he exist. So if I cannot show it exists, then they have good reason not to believe it exists.

In reply I have to write to him that whatever exists within the universe exists within the space and time of the universe. But can we say within which space and time the universe as a whole exists?

And I have to explain to him in detail as to why this cannot be said about the universe that it is within any space and time. This is because although we know very well that the universe is expanding, yet as per the cosmologists the truth is that it is not expanding into anything, which means the universe as a whole is not embedded within any higher space and time. Although this universe is not within any space and time, yet for that reason we do not say that the universe does not exist.

I also gave him something to think over.

Thought for the day: We know that space and time are relative. But have we ever asked from when they were relative? Were they relative from the very beginning of their existence? If so, then the cause due to which they were relative must already be present there before the beginning of space and time, that is, before the beginning of the universe.

But if we say that this cause is within the universe only and not outside of it, then space and time would only be relative from the moment this cause would make its first appearance within the universe. Before that space and time would remain absolute.

But this does not convince him at all and so he says that he is still waiting for any evidence of this God. As per him even after for more than 2000 years of God-talk, still there is no evidence.

So I have to repeat to him that I have already shown how the presence of a spaceless and timeless God would make space and time relative in our universe and that scientists have also found that space and time are indeed relative.

Then again I show him how his argument that God does not exist because he is not within any space and time has already been defeated, because if it is asserted that God does not exist on this ground only, then for that very same reason we will also have to assert that the universe does not exist, because as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space and time. And if in one case we admit that the universe exists but if in another case we refuse to admit the same for God, then that will only show that we are using some sort of double standard which is not a very good thing to promote or support.

I have also shown which problem might arise if the existence of this God is denied, because in that case there would be a period during which space and time would remain absolute.

I have also written that scientists are the only persons who can specifically say whether space and time were relative from the very beginning of their existence, or whether there was a brief period during which they were absolute. However, if it is true that they were relative from the very beginning, then the cause due to which they were relative must predate the beginning of the universe.

And I have to write to him that up to this I have made my point very clear.

This time the atheist becomes silent.

So the conclusion that can be drawn from the above discussion is this: If space and time are relative from the very beginning of their existence, then the cause due to which they are relative must be prior to the beginning of the universe.

In one YouTube comment thread I have written the following to a theist:

Atheists very frequently ask this question: If God created everything then who created God? If one answers their question by saying that God needs no creation, then their usual reply would be that it is some sort of special pleading, because if everything needs creation, then why not God?

But actually it is not any sort of special pleading; rather it shows how unintelligent atheists are. Due to their lack of intelligence they fail to understand that a cause that is the end-cause in a series of other causes cannot itself have a cause, because in that case it would no longer remain an end-cause. Rather it would become one of the middle causes only. An end-cause can never have any further cause. This is simple logic.

If an entity, the existence of which has been posited in order to stop an infinite regress, needs a cause itself, then it will fail to serve its purpose, e.g. stopping an infinite regress. So, what is the purpose of positing its existence if it cannot stop that regress? Better allow the regress.

Here one atheist comes into the picture and replies that the so called "infinite regress" problem cannot be solved by a god in any way.

So I have to reply to him that it is not true that the "infinite regress" problem cannot be solved by a god. Thanks to Stephen Hawking the question 'Who created God?' has already been answered at least ten years earlier.

He replies that a god cannot solve the problem, because a god is subject to the same problem. A god's thinking and acting (deciding) are subject to infinite regress because they are things which require causes. A god is not nothing.

As per him my confusion lies in my automatic unfounded assumption that there had to be stasis before motion. Just like when people assume without foundation that there had to be nothing, before there was something.

He also writes that if motion is a prerequisite for what is, then there is no reason not to assume that the nature of existence is perpetual change. Adding a mind only creates an infinite regress and many paradoxes.

This time I point out to him that his reply shows that he is ignorant of many things. Stephen Hawking in his book 'A Brief History of Time' has given us a clue regarding how this infinite regress problem can be solved. The clue is that if we can somehow arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised and that there will be no infinite regress.

After getting this clue from him it has been possible by me to show that in God totality of everything is zero and that therefore God will need no creation. This shows infinite regress is not at all a problem anymore in case of God.

But my reply fails to convince him. He replies that a god must be comprised of something and that otherwise it is nothing. As per him I have assumed, based on an extremely narrow interpretation of an extremely tentative scientific hypothesis, based on wholly inadequate data, that there was nothing before our universe. Even so, I have contradicted myself, when I have said that a god was here before. A god, by definition is not nothing. I am trying to have it both ways.

He also adds that even if there were such a thing as a god, there would have to be some kind of mechanism by which it does whatever it does. If it is not made of something, it is nothing (less than imaginary).The supernatural by definition is just another form of natural, but it's not nothing.

He knows that the findings of physics are mind bending, but it is also true that science is still looking for the nature of reality. If I wish to throw up my hands and say: "It was just magic", I am welcome to, but even magic is not nothing. Even magic, is subject to infinite regress.

I have written: "....God ....is zero..." But that's nothing. Perhaps I have answered my own question by saying that God is zero.

My final reply to him was this:

His reply very nicely explains as to why all the other ancient civilizations failed to invent zero, whereas it was possible by Indian civilization only. This is because in ancient India, and in India only, there was the philosophical concept of Nirvana, which is a physical state where everything we know of, comes to an end. Has he ever thought where computer science would have been now if zero was not invented by an unknown Indian? So he should not try to belittle the philosophical concept that made possible the invention of zero. Rather he should try to understand what it is.

There was no further reply from him.

Invited talk at Water Conference 2018 in Sofia, Bulgaria: https://youtu.be/nBiFMWmwaLM?t=9232

In an earlier article ‘Existence of anything can ultimately point to God’1 I have already shown that if anything exists at all then ultimately there would have to be something that would be neither in space nor in time, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress.

The above shows that the ultimate reality - whatever that ultimate reality may be - cannot be within any space and time. So the ultimate reality will always be spaceless and timeless and it will be so simply by default, uncaused. It would be uncaused, because being the ultimate reality there would be absolutely nothing beyond it that could have been the cause of it. Everything else other than the ultimate reality would be within some space and time and so none of them would be spaceless and timeless.

Now the question is: Can there be an infinite regress in nature? Have we done the correct thing here by stopping an infinite regress? Here nature has given its verdict very clearly regarding the infinite regress: Nature abhors infinite regress.

I have also stated earlier2 that scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying unanimously that space and time are not fundamental entities at all and that they have emerged from some non-spatiotemporal entity.

So what we have shown above by logic alone that if anything exists at all and if we do not allow infinite regress, then ultimately there would be something spaceless and timeless is also now supported by scientific observation that there is something non-spatiotemporal in nature from which space and time have emerged.

Here we should mention that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is the new scientific term for the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’. Theories of relativity have taught the scientists that space and time are not two separate entities, rather space and time combined should be treated as one single entity: spacetime. So instead of saying ‘spaceless and timeless’ they are now saying ‘non-spatiotemporal’. But the meaning remains the same in both the cases; the particular entity is not within any space and time.

At least two reasons can be given as to why this spaceless and timeless/non-spatiotemporal entity (NSE) should precede the beginning of the universe:

1) One reason is that space and time are relative and that there is no evidence that they were absolute at any time. So we will have to conclude from this that they were always relative, that is, they were relative from the very beginning of their existence. In that case the cause due to which they are relative must already be present there before the beginning of space and time i.e. before the beginning of the universe.

2) The other reason is that space and time are not only relative, but emergent as well. An emergent entity cannot emerge from just anything, or everything, or nothing. It can emerge from some particular entity or entities only. Space and time can emerge from NSE only. So, prior presence of this NSE is absolutely necessary before the beginning of the universe in order that space and time can emerge from it at the beginning of the universe.

Now, is there any evidence that NSE is also conscious?

It has already been stated earlier that the ultimate reality is the only entity that would be spaceless and timeless, because being the ultimate reality it would not be within any space and time. Everything else would be within space and time and so they cannot be spaceless and timeless. However there is only one single exception here: light. Light is within the space-time of the universe and despite that light is spaceless and timeless. As per SR the distance from the place of origin of light to its ultimate destination is zero and time taken for light to arrive at its destination from its place of origin is also zero. So as per SR light occupies zero space for zero time within the universe. This is as good as saying that light is neither in space nor in time.

But it cannot be said about light that it is spaceless and timeless by default, because light is within space and time. So, if it is spaceless and timeless, then this must have been caused by something else. This something else can only be the ultimate reality, because it is the only other entity that is spaceless and timeless and that also by default only.

So, here there are two entities that are spaceless and timeless. One entity, the ultimate reality, is spaceless and timeless by default; the other entity, light, is also spaceless and timeless, but not by default.

Now let us take two spheres; one sphere is extremely hot and the other one is extremely cold. If the two spheres are kept side by side with a little gap between them, then the cold sphere will also be somehow heated up after some time due to the heat dissipated in its surroundings from the hot sphere. Here we need not have to assume that the hot sphere is conscious and that it has some sort of intention, wish or desire to make the cold sphere hot and so it willingly transfers some of its body-heat to the cold sphere. No, nothing of the sort. Whatever would be in the vicinity of the hot sphere will be automatically heated up due to the heat dissipated from the hot sphere. There is no need of any conscious effort here.

Now let us take another two spheres; this time one sphere is spaceless and timeless whereas the other one is not. Here also we can think that the spaceless and timeless sphere will automatically make the other sphere spaceless and timeless, because the attributes of spacelessness and timelessness will flow from it to its surroundings and whatever would be in its vicinity would become spaceless and timeless; no consciousness being needed here also. If this can really so happen, then we will not need any God at all. But the question is: can this really so happen? Can one spaceless and timeless entity make another entity spaceless and timeless in this way? What is the actual mechanism needed here?

So whether there is a God or not will ultimately depend on how scientists solve the above problem. If scientists can show that there is a natural way as to how one spaceless and timeless entity can bestow its own attributes of spacelessness and timelessness on another entity, then we need not have to think that this universe needs any God. However their failure here will mean that the ultimate reality is a conscious entity.

Here we are not dogmatically asserting that there is a God. Rather we are keeping our mind open to the possibility that one day scientists might find a natural solution to the problem stated above. On that day we will also have to accept that scientific solution and admit that this universe does not need any God.

However, if scientists fail to give any natural solution to the above problem, then only we will be forced to conclude that the spaceless and timeless entity is not a lifeless, mindless and unconscious entity; rather it is life, mind and consciousness itself.

So let the scientists show as to how a lifeless, mindless and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless by default can naturally bestow its own attributes of spacelessness and timelessness on another entity and thus makes it also spaceless and timeless.

We will wait for that day.

Reference:
1. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/537
2. https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/567

From special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. And from general theory of relativity we come to know that space, time and matter are interlinked and that there cannot be any space and time without matter. As matter and energy are equivalent, so we can also say here that there cannot be any space and time (or spacetime) without energy.

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.’1

Here we see what is stated in theory is also supported by sound observation.

Below are five links where it has been shown mathematically that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/368258/pdf (V. Faraoni and F. I. Cooperstock)
2) http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332010000100001&script=sci_a... (A. A. Sousa; J. S. Moura; R. B. Pereira)
3) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-vii-more-about-zer... (Aron Wall)
4) http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf (Marcelo Samuel Berman)
5) http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/all_zilch_much_ado_about_noth... (Johannes Koelman)

Below are another six links where also it has been very clearly stated that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ (Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff)
2) http://mxplx.com/meme/2098/ (Stephen Hawking)
3) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf719034..html
(Richard P Feynman)
4) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936 (Lawrence Krauss)
5) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/is-the-universe-a-free-l... (Paul Davies)
6) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternit... (Aron Wall)

So we can with some confidence say that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero.

So far we have come to know two things:

1) There cannot be any space and time without energy; and
2) The total energy of the universe is zero.

Now we want to know as to whether there is any spacetime outside our universe. If we claim that there is, then the question is: Which energy would justify the existence of that spacetime? This is because the universe as a whole does not have any energy. So this universe cannot justify the existence of any spacetime outside it, because without energy there cannot be any spacetime. So it is very much doubtful as to whether there is any spacetime at all outside our universe. As the total energy of the universe has always remained zero, so it is also very much doubtful as to whether there was any spacetime outside our universe at any time. This is as per the knowledge acquired from the present universe.

If it is still argued by anybody else that there could be other kinds of spacetime outside our known spacetime about which we do not know anything, then our question to that person will be this: From where has she acquired the knowledge that there can be spacetime without energy? Is it from the present universe? Or is it from some supernatural source? Or is it her own intuition?

If there cannot be any spacetime outside our universe, then can there be other universes beyond our universe?

Reference:
1. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

A few years back I have written an article ‘Stephen Hawking’s Hotchpotch’1 in which there was some criticism of Hawking’s book The Grand Design. Recently I have posted some selected portions from it in one YouTube comment thread in reply to someone else’s post. The portions which were posted are given below:

1) ‘In The Grand Design Hawking has really messed up things. In his earlier book A Brief History of Time he advocated a no-boundary model. According to this model the universe will have no beginning and no end, it would simply be. It means that the universe has never begun, it was always there. Only that it has gone through unending cycles of expansion and contraction, but it has never completely died down. When the universe had come to a zero size due to contraction, all the physical laws of the earlier universe remained intact. From there the universe had again started a new life. But this beginning cannot be said to be an absolute beginning and this beginning should not be confused with the beginning of a universe practically from nothing due to a vacuum energy fluctuation in a void. The latter beginning can be called an absolute beginning, because in this case there will be no prehistory, no prior universe that has left its seed at its demise.

‘In The Grand Design Hawking has never said that he has abandoned his earlier model. Rather he has written in one place that in no boundary model the universe will have no beginning. Or, if it was having a beginning, then that beginning was governed by the laws of science and was not needed to be set in motion by some god. This generation of the universe cannot be called a spontaneous generation from nowhere, because the seed of the universe was already there. Therefore an atheist scientist who is advocating the no-boundary model cannot at the same time say that as because there is a law such as gravity, so the universe can and will create itself from nothing. A universe that would simply be cannot again pop into existence from nothing. So it is presumed that Hawking in his book The Grand Design has mixed up two distinct models of cosmology that try to explain the origin of the universe:

(a) The no-boundary model; and
(b) The popping-up model.’

2) ‘Perhaps the most serious objection that can be raised against the no-boundary model is this: Even it is conceded that in no-boundary model beginning of the universe will be governed by known laws of science, still one thing is sure and certain in this scenario. The beginning of any universe can never be governed by its own laws, because a universe that has not yet come into existence cannot have any laws in it. Its beginning can only be governed by physical laws left by the universe just prior to it. If what I have said here is correct, then how could Hawking apply the quantum gravitational law and Feynman’s sum over histories at the beginning of our universe? So, how could he say that there would be no singularity at the beginning? How did he come to know that the physical laws left by the earlier universe just prior to ours were an exact replica of the laws of our universe?’

Almost three months have elapsed after that when an atheist came into the picture and asked me the question whether I am a cosmologist.

So I have to reply to him that I am neither a cosmologist nor a scientist.

His reply comments was this: I have written Hawking has messed up things. ‘Messed up things’ also means ‘mixed up things’. Such things should not be said about a scientist’s work.

So I have to write back to him this: ‘What I have written in my first comment was taken from my article 'Stephen Hawking's Hotchpotch'.

‘Scientist Victor J Stenger wrote a review of the book 'The Grand Design' in Huffpost (Ref: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-grand-accident_b_77724...) in which he praised the book very highly. The last sentence of his article was this: 'This important book deserves its position on the bestseller list.'

‘But when I sent my above article to him in an e-mail, his reply e-mail was this: 'If you will look at my book The Comprehensible Cosmos, you will see that I showed that the NB solution could also be interpreted as tunneling from a previous universe. See also the link to my Philo paper on this at
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/relig.html'

‘Here you will find that he has said not a single word in support of Hawking, although in my article I have severely criticized Hawking's book. Rather he has tried to draw my attention to the NB solution which he has offered in his book.

‘Why? Because my criticism of Hawking appeared to him as not unjust.

‘So, what you are to say about it does not matter at all.’

This time he asked me this question: If I am not a physicist or more specifically a cosmologist then why do I think I am qualified to critique his papers?

My final reply to him was this: ‘Here the question is not whether I am a scientist or a cosmologist. The question is whether my criticism of Hawking's book was just or unjust. If it were unjust, then Victor Stenger being a scientist could have pointed it out to me. But he has not done any such thing, which means my criticism did not appear to him as unjust. If it were unjust, then only he could have raised the question as to why not being a scientist or a cosmologist I had gone to criticize his book, because my unjust criticism had exposed that I was not qualified to do that.

‘As no such thing has happened, so the question does not arise as to whether I am a scientist or a cosmologist.

‘When an atheist criticizes a philosopher's doctrine, then should anyone ask him this question that not being a philosopher why he has gone to criticize a philosopher?’

This time the atheist did not reply.

Reference:
1. https://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/128/149

In reply to my comment that God is spaceless and timeless an atheist has written that existence is a function of time and space. If at no place and no time does 'god' exist, then 'he' does not exist. If I disagree, then I should present evidence for 'god.'

In reply I have written to him this:

Whatever exists within the universe exists within the space and time of the universe. But within which space and time does the universe as a whole exist?

We know the universe is expanding. But when it is asked within which it is expanding, the reply we usually get from the cosmologists is that it is not expanding into anything, which means the universe as a whole is not embedded within any higher space and time. So the universe as a whole is not within any space and time. For that reason we do not say that the universe does not exist.

If the universe can exist not being within any space and time, then God can also exist not being within any space and time. So he cannot dismiss God solely on this reason. He will have to provide some other better reason.

But my reply does not convince him at all. He comments that I am unable to understand cosmology. Again he repeats the same argument that existence is a function of time and space, etc. He also writes that I have yet to demonstrate that anything can exist outside space and time.

So again I have replied to him that from his last two comments it appears that he knows nothing about the new development in modern physics. That is why he does not know that all his concepts and thoughts about space and time have become obsolete and back-dated.

Scientists working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying that space and time are not fundamental and that they have emerged from some non-spatiotemporal entity. Not only they, but string theorists, causal set theorists as well as scientists working with loop quantum gravity are also saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental.

Non-spatiotemporal is a new scientific term for the old term spaceless and timeless. Instead of saying spaceless and timeless these scientists are now saying non-spatiotemporal. But the meaning remains the same; there is something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature from which space and time have emerged.

Yes, it is true that they have not yet acknowledged that this non-spatiotemporal entity (NSE) is a conscious entity, yet it is also true that they have ultimately acknowledged that there is something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature. Thus all his objections about anything spaceless and timeless become null and void.

It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth, but to discover it. So, if there is a spaceless and timeless being, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now they have discovered that there is one spaceless and timeless entity in nature.

For the rest of the thing, we can wait.

This time he poses these questions to me:

1: Who said it's an entity?
2: Where is this timeless and spaceless being? I should show evidence for it.
He also states that I should provide some evidence for my claims.

So I again write to him that if he is fully convinced that he is in possession of truth, then he should be bold and courageous enough to face all those scientists who are now saying that space and time are not fundamental. So instead of posing these questions to me, he should directly pose them to those scientists. And he should also try to convince those errant scientists that they are all talking nonsense.

But he disagrees and says that he is just waiting for me to back my claims.

This time I reply to him that maybe he is lacking courage and conviction enough to directly confront those scientists, but that does not mean that his cowardice will be the determining factor as to why I will have to endorse his viewpoint here rather than that of the scientists.

I also inform him that whatever may be the circumstances, I will always prefer to go with the scientists and not with an ordinary atheist like him. And I will try to understand why they are saying such things now:

1) ...[T]he idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before.
- The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthric

2) Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton said, "I am almost certain that space and time are illusions. These are primitive notions that will be replaced by something more sophisticated."

- Donald D. Hoffman in The Abdication Of Space-Time (Edge.org)

3) 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

4) Space (or spacetime) does not exist fundamentally: it emerges somehow from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. This intriguing claim appears in various approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.
- Composing the World Out of Nowhere

He replies that none of the above points to 'god.' Nor does it support my claims. Nor have I demonstrated that a 'god' could live there. Let alone does.

What follows is my final reply to him:

I thought that I would not make any further comment here, but his last comment compels me to change my decision.

I do not know whether he has heard the name of Richard Carrier. He is an atheist. He has written somewhere that from logical point of view there is no reason as to why someone or something cannot move with a speed greater than that of light, but it is physically impossible.

What does it mean? It means that by logic alone we cannot decide what is physically possible or not. For doing that we need experiment and observation.

Similarly we can say by logic alone we cannot decide what is physically real or not. Here also we need experiment and observation. Let me give one example:

‘Classical human reason, defined in terms of common sense notions following from our own myopic experience of reality is not sufficient to discern the workings of the Universe. If time begins at the big bang, then we will have to re-explore what we mean by causality, just as the fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time doing two different things at the same time as long as we are not measuring them is completely nonsensical, but true, and has required rethinking what we mean by particles.’
(This is from an article by scientist Lawrence Krauss that he wrote after a debate between him and William Lane Craig and posted by P.Z.Myers in his Freethoughtblogs Pharyngula, dated April 5, 2011.)

He is saying existence is a function of space and time. So, as per him for something to exist it must be within some space and time. But if he sticks to this principle up to the end, then he will find that he has been ultimately driven to an infinite regress.

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.

The multiverse exists within some super-multiverse.

The super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse.

The super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse.

The supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse.

In this way we will have to go on up to infinity, because we cannot stop anywhere.

Here everything will be within some space and time, but for that he will have to pay a heavy price; there will be an infinite regress.

If he wants to stop this infinite regress, then he will have to stop somewhere in the middle. Let us say we stop at level X; this X might be the universe, or the multiverse, or the super-multiverse, or the super-duper multiverse, or any assembly beyond or higher than the last one. Whatever might be this X, it will not be within any space and time, because beyond it there will be absolutely nothing. This X will be the ultimate reality and this ultimate reality will be spaceless and timeless.

So, here there are only two options:

i) In one case everything will be within some space and time, but there will also be an infinite regress;

ii) In the other case there will be no infinite regress, but here the ultimate reality will not be within any space and time.

An infinite regress is generally avoided, because a never-ending chain of causes cannot ultimately produce anything. However it is up to him what he will do.

Repeated observations of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement have compelled the scientists to come to the conclusion that at some deeper layer in the universe there is no space and time. That is why connection between two entangled particles is established instantaneously, defying all the space-time separation between the two. That is the reason as to why scientists are now saying just like the mystics that ‘space and time are illusions’ and that ‘the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in' space and time’.

He has written:

‘[A]nd none of that points to 'god.' Nor does it support my claims. Nor have I demonstrated that a 'god' could live there.

‘Let alone does.’

While writing this he has forgotten what I have written in one of my earlier comments:

‘It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth, but to discover it. So, if there is a spaceless and timeless being, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now they have discovered that there is one spaceless and timeless entity in nature.

‘For the rest of the thing, we can wait.’

So, this is our final message to the atheistic community in general all over the world:

If there is a spaceless and timeless God, then scientists will also discover it one day. This is because it is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. Up till now they have discovered that there is something non-spatiotemporal in nature from which space-time has emerged.

Scientists have been able to deliver this much up till now. For the rest of bags and baggage, we will wait.