Comments on: Why Christian Apologetics Died Years Ago

By: Response to Reader: What is Freedom?

Response to Reader: What is Freedom? — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 17:28:55 +0000

[...] arguments. One is that God made man in His image and since God is free then man is therefore free. I don’t think that makes any sense what so ever since we have no arguments for the existence o… so I tend to stick to the second basic argument. I own my body, I own my labor, I own what I [...]

By: Himangsu Sekhar Pal

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:32:02 +0000

IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THEN WHO CREATED GOD?
Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support for our project.
God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.
Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration that there is also a God. In other words, if God is there, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they do not know that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making the calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made the calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then scientists have shown that both the total mass and energy of the universe including God are zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God is also light, and therefore He is spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.
Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero.
So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.
H. S. Pal

By: david

david — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 23:56:54 +0000

Very interesting blog I was looking for blogs on free thinking and yours struck me as interesting and diverse! Keep up the good work.

As for the “Who created God ?” question I believe is a fallacy in terms to cut to the chase.

Creation is an action we humans attribute since there is no other way we could ever see thing take shape. Our mind conceives of actors and actions. The fact is that we can all concur that we live in (ignoring the 10+ dimensions of super string theory etc..) at least 3.5 dimensions XYZ space an t+ time going forward that’s half a dimension. At least we know that from our daily observations. Might be false but let’s assume that for now.

Any creator would need to act in “time” to produce something. So the creation of time is per-definition a contradiction. Outside of time and space, we can still deems stuff to exist in a higher dimensionality than this universe ( since it is defined in this let’s say meta space). It’s not necessary but intuitively and following Occam Razor’s principal more likely due to the exponential growth of a sub-dimensional description inversion i.e. imagine defining 3D with 2D structures and up from there, possible in principle but improbably perverse.

Anything there just “is” in a broader sense. The concepts of decide plan and think are formation concepts 3.5D way of thinking. If you know the future and the past all your actions just are and can be in no other way.

The multiverse approach short circuits the argument and elegantly describes a reality where everything happened in one way or another all possible not necessarily probable Universes DO exist in reality. Which one we subjectively experience depends by our decision or is completely serendipitous, who knows? Maybe the “soul” is just the path of choices across the multiverse and our lives are only the unfolding of the paths chose by our lines through the maze of infinte possibilities.

Keep the ideas flowing.
bye

By: J

Sat, 22 May 2010 19:33:43 +0000

1.) Since Methodological naturalism (science) is strictly confined to the acquisition of knowledge regarding the natural world, ie., that which is empirically verifiable, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural(in this case, God.) As the supernatural by definition is beyond the natural world, it is therefore beyond the ability of science to observe.

In light of this, your statement that

“it should be common knowledge that the atheistic view is the scientific viewpoint because that is where the overwhelming majority of evidence points – toward an atheistic universe..”

is incorrect.

Science can’t take either side. It must remain agnostic.

2.) You have conceded that there is more than abundant scientific evidence for the big bang. Assuming the big bang, one must also assume the singularity, before which, space and time didn’t exist.This being the case, whatever caused the big bang must be immaterial (non-physical) and timeless. Since time as a dimension did not exist before the singularity, whatever caused the big bang could not have been accidental or a random event, since any event that occurs must happen within the dimension of time. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that since the cause of the big bang was not a random event, it must have been a cause that freely CHOSE to cause the big bang, ie, an agent. In summary, the cause of the big bang was an immaterial, atemporal, agent with free will.

3.) Morality as you define it is nothing more than a set of highly evolved survival instincts; instincts that ensure the survival of Homosapiens as a species. If we had evolved under different circumstances or in different environments, we may have evolved different survival instincts that would then constitute “morality.” On this view, there is no objective “Good” or “Evil.” There was nothing really objectively “evil” or “wrong” with Hitler’s extermination of 14 million human beings. It should merely be frowned upon because it was “maladaptive to the survival of our species” as you stated. This worldview utterly fails to account for why anyone, given a lapse of “normal” instincts, SHOULD desire the survival of our species. What can be said to an individual who either feels no such innate urge for self-preservation or for the preservation of his species? Why is he ultimately “wrong” in murdering another person? Metaphysical naturalism cannot give human beings any intrinsic value. On Metaphysical naturalism, Human beings, like all other living organisms, are merely the product of primordial slime. It is therefore no more “immoral” to kill a human being than it is to kill a cow, or a cockroach. Science cannot prove that a human being has anymore intrinsic value than an insect, or a quadruped. The reason for this, as mentioned above, is because methodological naturalism deals only with the natural world. Questions of morality and intrinsic worth are metaphysical, not naturalistic.