My Encounter with God: Conclusion
In Part X we have seen that the fact that space and time become non-existent for light compels us to posit the existence of God. Here I want to discuss some more points that have come to my mind.
First of all I want to discuss as to whether it was in any way necessary to introduce the concept of The Whole at any place at all. This is because in Part X we have already seen that if the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless and timeless. So with this concept of the universe being spaceless and timeless as a whole it could easily be shown that the universe must have to have consciousness in order that it could bestow its own properties of spacelessness and timelessness to light also. So why have I introduced the concept of The Whole? Was it absolutely necessary? Yes, it was necessary. This is because the idea of the universe being spaceless and timeless as a whole can be challenged at any time, and it has actually been challenged in the multiverse theory. If multiverse theory is true, then it will not be correct to say that there is nothing outside our universe, because in that case there will probably be an infinite number of other universes outside our universe, and so our universe can no longer be said to be spaceless and timeless. Universe no longer being spaceless and timeless, how could it be shown that light could receive its own properties of spacelessness and timelessness from the universe only? And so, how could it be shown that the universe must have to have consciousness also? So, in order to prove the existence of God, I would have to bear the extra burden of proving the falsity of multiverse theory first, and then only I could have proceeded further, whereas with the concept of The Whole, the task of proving the existence of God becomes nothing but a child’s play. This is because the definition of The Whole is such that no one in this universe, and if multiverse theory is true, then even no one in the entire multiverse can ever be able to challenge this definition of The Whole. By its very definition The Whole will always be spaceless and timeless, because by its very definition there can never be anything outside The Whole. The difference between the universe and The Whole is this: the universe will always remain the universe whether there is anything outside it or not, whereas The Whole will no longer remain The Whole if there is anything outside it. Thus the very definition of The Whole entails that it will always have to be spaceless and timeless, and we can say that it will be so uncaused, because its cause will lie within its definition itself. If we now find that light is also spaceless and timeless, we cannot claim that it is so causelessly, because about light we cannot claim that it is The Whole. This is because it is only one element amongst many other elements of this universe. So, if light is spaceless and timeless, then this must have been caused by something else, and this something else can only be The Whole if we want to stop an infinite regress here. The Whole must have to have consciousness also, as I have already explained earlier. Thus it can be seen that the introduction of the concept of The Whole was absolutely necessary here for proving the existence of God.
The next point I want to discuss is: whether there can be some other proofs of God other than the phenomenon of light. Yes, potentially there can be other proofs also. Let us take one concrete example: the emergence of life from non-life. There is a famous saying of Richard Feynman: what I cannot create, I do not understand. In this particular context this saying will mean that biologists have not yet fully understood the whole process of life emerging from non-life in its every detail. If they had, then they would have already created life from non-life, and would have shown to the whole world that there is no mystery anywhere. Let us now suppose that even after several decades of sincere efforts of many scientists all over the world, this picture remains the same; phenomenon of life emerging from non-life remains a mystery, an enigma to mankind. Will that prove that there is a God? Will that prove that there is the hand of God behind the appearance of life on earth? Yes, we can always presume that, but we cannot be absolutely certain here, because it might also be the case that some higher intelligence is actually responsible for creating life on earth. This higher intelligence may be God, or may not be. We do not know. But in case of light we can with absolute certainty say that it is from God only, and not from anyone else, light can receive its own properties of spacelessness and timelessness, because God is The Whole. God is The Whole because we usually say about God that initially there was only God, and that there was nothing else other than God. This equates God with The Whole, because the same thing can be repeated about The Whole also: only The Whole can be there, and there can be nothing else other than The Whole. God being The Whole it becomes crystal clear that the phenomenon of light is the only phenomenon of nature that can show with absolute certainty that there is a God.
Here ends my story.