Are Atheists Hypocrites?

The following is taken from a YouTube comment thread:

Atheist

So precious how theists all try to claim an infinite regress is impossible even though it isn’t but here’s this thing about human linguistics that makes even the idea of it absurd.

So obviously the limitations of human language prove an infinite regress is impossible.

Me to Atheist

Here, the question is not whether an infinite regress is possible or impossible. An infinite regress is non-observable and therefore, unscientific.

Below I am going to present an infinite regress of some sort. Please tell me how you will convince others that there is really such an infinite regress in nature.

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 that contains trillions of other galaxies.

The universe exists within the multiverse that contains trillions of other universes.

Cosmologists usually stop at this level; they do not go beyond the multiverse.

But there is no binding that we would have to stop here at the multiverse level at all.

So we would say that this multiverse exists within some super-multiverse that contains trillions of other multiverses.

Then we would again say that this super-multiverse exists within some super-duper multiverse that contains trillions of other super-multiverses.

Then we would again say that this super-duper multiverse exists within some supra-multiverse that contains trillions of other super-duper multiverses.

Then we would again say that this supra-multiverse exists within some supra-dupra multiverse that contains trillions of other supra-multiverses.

And so on and on ad infinitum.

We know earth exists. Therefore, there will also be an infinite regress of this sort:

Universe – Multiverse – Super-multiverse – Super-duper multiverse – Supra-multiverse – Supra-dupra multiverse – up to infinity.

If you are in favor of the infinite regress here, then you will have to give evidence that there is really such an infinite regress in nature. Will you please tell me how you, or anybody from the scientific community, will give that evidence?

Atheist to Me

That’s idiotic… The whole idea that you can’t have an infinite regress is an artifact of human linguistics and people deliberately misunderstanding Zeno’s paradox.

I don’t have to prove shit. You can feel free to try to disprove an infinite regress but I’m not going to waste my time playing with you fundies. Do your own god damn homework for once!

Better yet, provide some actual reason why it should be impossible.

Me to Atheist

Your comment has very nicely exposed the double standard of atheists.

In the case of God, you people will say that only logic and arguments are not sufficient; some concrete evidence is required.

But in the case of the infinite regress, you will forget your own dictum. Here, you will say that logic and arguments are sufficient; no evidence is required and nothing is to be proved.

In the case of the infinite regress, you atheists are blind believers.

You atheists are hypocrites.

My last comment was deleted twice.���~

Do Time and Distance Really Shrink to zero at light-speed?

So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:

           l₁ = l(1-v²/c²)^1/2…….    (1)

           t₁ = t((1-v²/c²)^1/2…….   (2)

From the above two equations, two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:

1. Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2. At light speed, both travel time and travel distance become zero.

Now reality may be such that

1. Time and distance are only relative, but in no circumstances they become zero  (A);
2. Time and distance are not only relative but at one particular case, they also become zero (B).

If reality is A, then the above two equations are not required at all to represent that reality; it can be equally represented by the following two equations:

         l₁ = l(1-v²/xc²)^1/2…….    (3)

         t₁ = t((1-v²/xc²)^1/2…….   (4)

In (3) and (4) above, x will have a value greater than one but less than infinity. But it cannot have a value equal to one or infinity. If the value of x is one, then we will go back to Einstein’s equations, whereas if its value equals infinity, then we will have Newton’s equations instead. From (3) and (4) above, it can clearly be seen that time and distance will be relative as before, but they will never be zero even at the speed of light due to the presence of the factor 1/x in the equations.

Now, I know very well that it is not possible to experimentally demonstrate what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, it is reasonable to doubt whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed. However, there is an alternate way to verify it.

Suppose scientists have repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment or any newer version of it, and suppose that they have arrived at equations (3) and (4) instead of equations (1) and (2). Then, based on these two equations (3) and (4), they can say that the shrinkage of time and distance to zero at light-speed is only a myth.

But, nature knows better than any one of us what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, whenever an actual experiment is performed with light and an interferometer, it is always returning us equations (1) and (2) only and not equations (3) and (4) even for a single time. This is nature’s indirect way to inform us that we are not doing any mistake when we are saying that time and distance become zero for light.

Scientists usually do not question this and so, we can find such statements in their writings on SR:

1) ‘For the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long.’ – Sascha Vongehr, in The Fundamental Nature of Light, Science 2.0 (February 3^rd, 2011);

2) ‘At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover.’ – Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist

There is a reason as to why scientists do not question this. The reason is that they know very well that they are in the domain of physics, and not in the domain of metaphysics. In the domain of physics, if they want to challenge something, then they cannot do so by using logic and reason only. Rather, they will have to experimentally demonstrate that that particular thing is wrong; they will have to experimentally demonstrate that equations (1) and (2) must be replaced by equations (3) and (4). So far, no one has been able to do this. So far, no one has been able to falsify SR.            

There is one more reason why we can say that time and distance indeed shrink to zero at light-speed. Main-stream physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental, but emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, by stating that spacetime is emergent, physicists have already acknowledged the existence of something spaceless and timeless in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged. I know that physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal, but I also know this that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is only a new scientific term that replaces our old term ‘spaceless and timeless.’ If there is something spaceless and timeless in nature, then it is quite obvious that science would show how anything can be spaceless and timeless, because it is the job of science to provide an explanation for every phenomenon, event and effect in nature. In SR, we get those requisite explanations for spacelessness and timelessness. So, although we cannot directly verify whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed, yet we can say that emergent spacetime is an indirect validation of it. �4!��

The Ultimate Justification For a Creator

Part I

Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:

1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;

2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.

For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.

For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.

Now suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light causing space and time contract to zero for light.

If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?

Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?

Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?

                                          Part II

I have already stated that we do not know the reason due to which light is spaceless and timeless. But, whatever may be the reason of this, it can be shown that this reason cannot lie within the space and time of the universe.

Let us suppose that X is that reason and that X is within the universe. If X is not spaceless and timeless itself, then it is not possible for it to make another entity spaceless and timeless. So, X must have to be spaceless and timeless first, and then only it can make another entity spaceless and timeless. But, if X is also spaceless and timeless, then we will have to ask the same question about X that we were earlier asking about light: Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, how has it become spaceless and timeless? So, now we will have to search for the cause due to which X has become spaceless and timeless. Therefore, from this we can conclude that the cause due to which light is spaceless and timeless cannot lie within the space and time of the universe. It must lie outside any space and time.

The only entity that we know of that lies outside any space and time is the source from which our known spacetime has emerged. The existence of this entity in nature has already been confirmed once physicists have declared that spacetime is emergent. So, here is one entity that is spaceless and timeless by default, and for which we need not have to seek any further cause due to which it has become spaceless and timeless, because we already know that it is not within any space and time.

Now, if scientists can somehow show that this lifeless, mindless, and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless simply by default, can NATURALLY make another entity (aka light) spaceless and timeless, then this universe WILL NEVER NEED ANY GOD.

However, if they fail to do so, then only we will be compelled to posit some sort of consciousness here, because it is possible for a conscious being only to know how it is spaceless and timeless.

Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth and so, let science show that there is a natural explanation here.

We will be waiting for that explanation. o %�m�

So easy, yet so difficult

Let us play a game.

Let us suppose that there is a creator of this universe. If this creator is to keep proof of his existence in the created world in such a way that it can be instantaneously recognized as proof of a creator, then which proof will he keep?

Anybody can play this game, theists and atheists alike, because it starts with a supposition only.

Here is a hint for those who will take part in this game: A creator as a creator may have some particular properties which no one else, nothing else created by him may have, simply because they have been created and because they are not the creator. If we now find these particular properties of a creator in something created, then we will immediately understand that these are from the creator only because no created thing can naturally have those properties.

When anybody playing this game will be able to correctly pinpoint those properties that only a creator is privileged to have, this game will be over.

And then she will come to know that there is a God. A�n�R���!s

On Infinite Regress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would also say that there is no need to feel frustrated over the issue that the infinite regress problem can never be solved, because we have successfully shown that it can be solved.^4,5

Reference:

1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/existence-of-anything-can-ultimately-point-to-god/

2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/origin-theory-from-nothing/

3. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/who-created-god/

4. When this article was published in one online journal, one person after reading this article sent me an e-mail saying that ‘the inevitable presence nowadays in various cosmological models of the “infinite regress” is simply a … silly … thing …’ Below is what he wrote to me:

‘I am writing in connection with your latest paper “On Infinite Regress” …

But of course, the inevitable presence nowadays in various cosmological models of the “infinite regress” is simply a … silly … thing … 😊

Indeed, a number of serious physicists have for some time by now stated that our usual perception of TIME is wrong, due to the fact that TIME, as much as SPACE, are NOT fundamental entities in Physics, but ONLY … epiphenomena arising from OTHER yet more fundamental entities …

And then the issue is: is there today concept of TIME according to which “infinite regression” does NOT appear anymore?

With best wishes.’

So I wrote back to him this: ‘I have gone through your e-mail. My question is: is there any scientific model at present for the origin of the universe in which it has not been assumed that quantum laws were already there? Can you give any citation?’

In his reply e-mail he did not provide any answer to my question and so again I had to write to him asking the same question.

This time he wrote back this: ‘I do not much care about technical details of present day cosmology: they are like … lady’s fashion …  born yesterday, die tomorrow …’

His refusal to answer my question is due to the fact that there is not a single cosmological model at present in which it has not been assumed that quantum laws were already there even when there was nothing. As scientists cannot explain whence those quantum laws appeared when there was nothing, so no cosmological model is actually free from this “infinite regress” problem. But in his first e-mail he wanted to establish that there is no “infinite regress” in various cosmological models. Perhaps after realizing that it is impossible for him to do this, he refused to answer my question.

5. In his article ‘The Other Side of Time (2000) (Ref: https://infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html) scientist Victor J Stenger had written the following:

‘Finally, by showing that the universe did not necessarily have a beginning, we can counter another common theist line of argument used whenever the claim is made that a spontaneous “creation” violates no known physics. The theist will say, “Where did physics come from?” If their imagined God did not have to come from something, because she had no beginning, then neither did physics.’

Now we are in a position to counter his above statement by saying that the question “Where did God come from?” has already been answered, whereas the question “Where did physics come from?” has not yet been answered.

Endnote: For my other articles, please see my new website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com

Relativity of space and time and their cause

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

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

1) This cause lies within space and time; and

2) it lies outside space and time.

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

Zero-energy Universe gives us one more reason for believing in the existence of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here my questions are two:

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

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

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

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

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

Endnote: For my other new articles please see my new website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com

Why there can be only One God

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

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

I have already shown elsewhere^1,2 that if there is a creator of the universe, then that creator cannot be within any space and time, because logic dictates that a creator will always precede his/her creation. Before creation there was no space and time and therefore the creator god was not within any space and time. That means before creation there was no one else, nothing else other than the creator god, because before creation there was no space and time beyond the creator god within which someone or something might exist. Or, we can also say that before creation there was no one else, nothing else beyond the creator god.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

1. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/a-purely-logical-and-cold-blooded-concept-of-god/
2. https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2017/06/14/which-god/

End note: Please visit my website sekharpalongod.wordpress.com for my new articles.

Atheist Using Double Standard For Ascertaining Truth

Recently I have some interactions with an atheist.

Atheist

There is a magic leprechaun who created the universe. I have evidence for it, because I have a book which says so. The leprechaun says that you have to marry me, otherwise you will be tortured for eternity. So, for your own good, come over here and marry me. I don’t want you to be tortured forever! Really! You just have to have faith, then you know I’m telling the truth. So… See you soon?

Me

‘There is a magic leprechaun who created the universe.’

Is your magic leprechaun spaceless, timeless and immaterial? If not, then your magic leprechaun cannot be the creator of the universe for the following reason:

Logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation. As universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so a creator of the universe will naturally have to be prior to space, time, matter and energy. Thus the creator of the universe cannot be within any space and time and neither can he contain any matter and energy.

So a magic leprechaun who is not spaceless, timeless and immaterial fails to qualify himself as a probable candidate for the post of the creator of the universe.

Atheist

He comes from another universe and created this universe. It is all in the book. And it makes more sense than the Biblical God. If something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, it doesn’t exist. There is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. Ergo: Something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.

Me

‘If something (or someone) is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, it doesn’t exist. There is no space where that something exists, there was no time that it existed and there is no material where that something exists of. Ergo: Something cannot exist without space, time and / or matter.’

The above quote shows that you have no idea about what it actually means to be spaceless and timeless. For you spaceless and timeless means to be in no space for no time and therefore something that is spaceless and timeless does not exist at all. But actually it does not mean that. Here is an example.

People generally misunderstand what it means to be outside space-time. Whatever exists within the universe exists within space-time. But what about the universe itself? Does it exist within some higher space-time? Is there any space-time beyond the universe? If there is no space-time beyond the universe, then universe as a whole does not exist within any space-time. In that case shall we say that the universe does not exist?

We know that the universe is expanding. Now if you ask any cosmologist this question that what it is expanding into, they will always reply that it is not expanding into anything, because the universe is not embedded into any higher space-time. Their answer is fully consistent with the big bang theory. Big bang theory says that space-time began along with the big bang only. That means big bang did not occur within any pre-existing space-time, because there was no space-time before the big bang. Therefore neither is the universe expanding within any pre-existing space-time.

So, here cosmologists are also saying the same thing that the universe as a whole is not within any space-time. Due to this reason shall we say that the universe does not exist?

Atheist

The universe does exist, because the universe IS space time and matter. As far as we know, there is nothing outside of our universe. So, it is indeed fully consistent with the Big bang theory. Outside the universe, there is no space and time, so outside our universe, there is no space or time where anything can exist, so, therefore, probably nothing exists without our universe.

Me

Everybody knows that universe is space, time and matter. But here the question is: within which space-time does the universe as a whole exist if there is no space-time outside the universe?

So your concept that spaceless and timeless means existing in no space for no time applies for the universe as well, because the universe as a whole is not within any space-time.

In whichever way you try to suppress this truth, you will fail.

Atheist

Ok then. So there is a council of gods existing without time, space and matter, spending no time doing nothing nowhere.

Anyway, they never showed any interest in me or my well being, so, I guess the god(s) have better things to do with their no time, and I will try to spend my time (because I have to deal with time because I am in the universe) as good as possible.

Oh, and in case you meet one or more gods, can you please tell them I’d really like to meet them? I am very curious how it is to live whitout space and time.

Me

Your last comment shows that either you are a dogmatic person, or your intelligence level is low, very low. So either you refuse to understand (due to your dogmatism), or you fail to understand (due to your low level of intelligence) that whatever may be the ultimate reality that ultimate reality can never be within any space and time.

Here the interaction ends.

Here the atheist is clearly using double standard for ascertaining truth; he is using one standard for God and another standard for the universe. For him existence means existing within some space-time. So for him God does not exist because God is not within any space and time. But for him the universe exists, although as per the cosmologists neither is the universe within any space-time, because it is not expanding into anything. So as per his own standard he should also say that the universe does not exist. But he does not say so.

So his using double standard for ascertaining truth is quite apparent.

A Purely Logical and Cold-blooded Concept of God

In one YouTube comment thread a person has asked this question: ‘What is God?’

So I have decided to write this post, although I know that some of my arguments here will only be a repetition from my earlier posts.

We all know that there is the universe. No one can have any doubt about it.

Now if we are to invoke a God at all, then we will always invoke that God who is the supposed creator of this universe. We will not invoke a lesser God than that. For example, we will not invoke a god who can send us rain, thunder and storm only, but cannot do anything else.

Simple logic dictates that a creator will always precede its creation.

As the universe primarily means its space, time, matter and energy, so simple logic dictates that the creator of the universe will be prior to space, time, matter and energy.

Thus a creator God being prior to space, time and matter will necessarily be spaceless, timeless and immaterial.

A creator God who is spaceless and timeless will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite, because all these attributes are nothing but the default attributes of someone or something that is spaceless and timeless.

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

It is needless to say here that this creator God should also have sufficient power and knowledge necessary for creating a universe. But that does not mean that he must have to be all-powerful and all-knowing.

So I am very clearly saying here that a creator God needs not have to be all-powerful and all-knowing.

Here whatever has been said about the creator God has logically followed from the statement that God is the creator of the universe. Nothing extra has been assumed or added by us.

Why do I call it a cold-blooded concept of God? This is because no human emotion has been allowed here to play any single part in forming this concept of God.

This can also be called a naked version of God, because the human jacket that he is forced to wear by the believers has been removed from his entire body.

Some atheists claim that man has created God in man’s own image. Even one eminent atheist like Daniel Dennett has claimed the same thing. Here I will show that all these atheists are mistaken in thinking so.

We know that God has not only been described as all-loving, all-good, merciful, just, compassionate etc., but he has also been described as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting, non-composite and immaterial. If we now claim that man has created God in man’s own image, then we will have to conclude that attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, immortality etc. are all human attributes.

But we know very well that these attributes are not human attributes at all.

So it is only a half-truth that man has created God in man’s own image.