Does God exist ? Stephen Hawkin’s ‘hot’ new debate

No, actually He does not. Neither does She. Neither does any religion push the existence of an individual as God. Buddha denied the existence of God except as the idea of ‘nothingness’. Christ was the Son (and therefore born of) God that is Eternal and the Light. The Prophet Mohammad was the Prophet through whom God the Almighty and Omnipresent spoke. The fundamentals of Hinduism are based on the idea’s of an eternity that encompasses all existence as described by Krishna (or at least revealed to) Arjun in the Bhagvad Geeta. Each religion has attempted to expand the concept of God to include ideas of universal eternal love and compassion.

I sometimes feel people keep raising these issues to sell their books or to get on to TV shows.

Of course science will go continue to expand the frontiers of knowledge in the logical understanding of our Universe. And wise philosophers and spiritualists will continue to co opt that part of science that somehow corresponds with concepts of centuries old spiritualists. Such as quantum physics. But while science can give us many theories to describe love, can it give us the experience of love ? And are experience and analysis the same thing ? No they are not.

There in lies the difference. We live in an infinite universe that we must describe and measure in finite terms for it to be ‘scientific’. The ideas of infinity can only come as mathematical possibilities with a ‘constant’ always needed to complete the infinite equation. More often than not that ‘constant’ is the assumption of ‘non linearity of time’ . Which will be proven no doubt, but to a human ego existing and addicted to the idea of linearity of time, ‘eternity’ is essentially incomprehensible other than in moments of expansive emotions of ‘faith’ and ‘love’.

The spiritualists describe the Universe as infinite probabilities. Infinite potential. It exists as you imagine it does. In fact it exists and does not exist at the same moment.

So does God also exist and not exist at the same time ? Is there a ‘being’ that is pulling all the strings of the Universe according to huge design ? Yes, if the design is infinite. And encompasses all possibilities that gives infinite choice. The idea being not someone or somebody that controls the Universe , but a Universe that is consistently creating and destroying itself.

Can there be a scientific equation that ‘explains’ the Universe ? Yes, if you could find an equation that is consistently evolving and destroying itself, refusing to be a static defined representation of our infinite existence.

178 Responses to “Does God exist ? Stephen Hawkin’s ‘hot’ new debate”

  1. Harb says:

    Deepak R , nothing we possess is our enemy – senses, feelings/emotions, ego/reason/mind, and finally even spirituality. Falling into them and then outgrowing them and in the process becoming their masters from beng their slaves is our life. Socalled tricks will automatically cease to keep up their play when the time to transcend will come. Such words are often used by those who are to sell socalled spirituality in the garb of being Babas or godmen, they play even greater tricks.

  2. brahmastra says:

    Deepak R,

    You are wise but still in a confused intellectual state. You have the correct theories, but the actual process hasn’t intensified for you yet. All those things you say are reflections of your own mind..you may be meek, but nonetheless. I don’t have any competition here with these guys..trust me, you are lucky to even converse with me. I am at peak levels with experiences you only read in books. When you realize the simplicity of it all, these theories are garbage like physics to a child. Annihilation of ego is no easy task..your poetic divulgence will not suffice.

  3. brahmastra says:

    Harb,
    You think you are doing good by feeding people that garbage? Think again. Scientists probably do more harm than thieves. You need to get a good regular dose of UG Krishnamurthi to get over your amateur self-designed universe babble.

  4. brahmastra says:

    Harb,
    Well, ahem..you are right, i didn’t read your post fully about free-will. Actually, i have to say it is apt in its description of free-will. It does not exist, but it is vain for the human mind to debate about it. Consider the human body as a robot that learns through experience with some form of AI logic programmed into its core processor aka mind. And subsequently, the internal logic of the processor also evolves with great complexity in parallel with the external experience (through numerous births). Eventually, the logic evolves to a point where it pops up the question of free-will and destiny.
    Once the core processor starts to compute the infinite probabilities it is up against if it wants free-will, it will burn out. Only the ignorant think they have free-will. There is a big difference between freedom and free-will. Freedom is giving up the individual will in complete surrender.
    Anyway all this is old wine in new bottle. May the force be with you..or should i say the four forces 😉

  5. Deepak R says:

    brahmastra, that ‘annihilation of ego is not easy’ is clear from your and Harb’s reaction to the note. why try to annihilate something that does not exist?

    I am sure you are well grounded in your own convictions and realisations . The desire to doubt, weigh, validate or challenge them is absent here. Let alone the desire to have the last word on this debate.

    as for ‘poetic divulgence’, that’s giving too much credit for what is seen here as rambling,that too will pass. ‘Self’ish desire exhausts itself too 😉

  6. Rudra says:

    All your exchanges made interesting reading . I seem to have missed some action here 🙂

    Harb ,

    it is true , your synthesised ( or concocted ) theories were irreristible in their appeal so i did have to commend you for somehow creating a new theories to help you accept all the existing theories – an ‘ all accepting one’ indeed that kavitha ( here on the blog) will be proud of 🙂

    unfortunately though , my question about life energy was rhetorical. and your response presumtuously technical.

    to cut it short – the summary of my dissection of everything you’ve written is that , it is a reformulation of a lot of second hand knowledge – it is the selection of second hand theories , that shows up the worthiness of a debate over it. so i’ll give it a pass , since i don’t contest something imaginary 🙂

  7. Rudra says:

    Brahmastra , it was funny to read your responses and that you suggested UG – not many people know of him and he is such a tonic to the delirious ! though , i did find that even UG’s Calamity was a result of his preceeding lack of faith in the Vedic path.

    If one rejects everything and eventually evolves to a point, where what should be a glorious realization of true freedom , is experienced as a ‘Calamity’ of lost reference frames and confusion and chaos , what then is the point ?…I think ‘sunyata’ lovers will see this one day , but UG is highly recommended for some.

    It is also fascinating to read your quote from Sri Gaudapada’s work . It is not often that an expression of exprience from the standpoint of Shiva consciousness is conceptualised. It is like the debate between Gargi and Yagnavalkya , where Gargi asks ‘ which comes first – janma or karma’ ?

  8. Rudra says:

    Subodh ,

    You mean well , so i’ll respond to you.

    What do you mean by a ‘ sanatani’ ? How do you define this word ? Also , We were not discussing Vedas ! However since you brought it up , lets have a brief look.

    You wrote that ‘Vedas were inexplicable and inexpressible’. I find this baffling and silly.

    If Veda is inexplicable , how do you think we have volumnuous Bhashyas and Sutras by Sages Vyasa to Adi Shankara and more recently by Ramanuja and Vidyaranya ? Veda cannot inexpressible , or we would not have Sruti or the Smriti.

    Veda point us in the direction , but like all second hand knowledge , they cannot be the object of such knowledge. It is in the realm of experience.

    The object of the Veda is Siva Tattva on one hand and also knowledge of different kinds. the object is described as both ‘ Knowable’ and ‘ Un Knowable’ one. Guess why ? 🙂

  9. brahmastra says:

    Rudra,
    Actually, UG spent most of his early years practising all the traditional Vedic ways such as yoga. He was initially a follower of the other midget Krishnamurti and swallowed the regular spiritual jargon. He was also said to have attained certain siddhis of recognizing people’s past lives and such. But he mentions that one of the startling experiences he had was when he visited Ramana Maharshi, the enlightened one who lived in such natural simplicity that baffled him. He asked the Maharshi to give him the state, upon which the latter asked if he will be able to take it.
    What happened to UG was true enlightenment. He calls it a “calamity” because it sure is. As i mentioned above, the final step is a process of deep purgatory. It happens in different ways to the select ripe seekers. If you read the details of his ‘calamity’, it is nothing but the kundalini awakening. It is all the same..all these different names for it. The mind is removed and only the eternal Self remains. Sri Rama had the same instantaneously in his early years, in the presence of his guru Vasishtha, because Lord Rama was an extremely ripe soul. However, the prarabdha will continue in the body.
    Please do not think UG’s calamity was “lost reference frames and confusion and chaos”. He mentiones it rarely but he was in the ultimate state. His words are powerful and of divine intelligence..he removes all the binding patterns..like in the zen koan: “if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him” which is explained well here (http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670). As is said, the jnani can come in all forms and mannerisms.

  10. Subodh Deshpande says:

    Rudra,

    By ‘Sanatani’ I mean the most and commonly known meaning of word ‘Sanatani’. Not the holy meaning of the word ‘Sanatani’.. A true sanatani is one who only lives as per ‘Veda’..a real Brahmin..all the three gods ‘Shiva, Vishnu and Brahama also respect him..no doubt about it..

    Todays Brahmins are their just ‘Vanshajas’..not real brahmins..including me..I am born in brahmin family and also brought up by the same family does not mean I am a brahmin..I am Brahmin Vanshajas born in Sage Vishwamitra’s Gotra..

    Vedas were inexplicable and inexpressible’ this is neither baffling nor silly.
    I still say Vedas are inexplicable and inexpressible mainly because they are ‘Apauresheya’

    Vedas were written when sages were searching for true gyan and relation among this nature, srishiti(say universe), the force working behind this srishiti, gods and goddesses, prameshwar..and what it is the principle behind all this..is it possible to know all these..and what can be done by knowing these
    all

    Quote
    the object is described as both ‘ Knowable’ and ‘ Un Knowable’ one. Guess why ?
    UnQuote

    this is a hard core reality..

    Thanks!
    Subodh

  11. Subodh Deshpande says:

    Hi Rudra,

    Just to once again mention that your comments look like of a ‘Sanatani’ I do not want to say you are ‘Sanatani’

    You asked what is Sanatani..browse the following link of Mr. Ravish Kumar Journalist and Anchor – NDTV..in this link he is pointing the nature which like a ‘Sanatani’.

    http://social.ndtv.com/ravishkumar/permalink/22916

    what is says is here
    Quote
    ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ???
    UnQuote

    did the government think atleast once on what these labours may feel..without that with all the power they are (humans like you and me) thrown like garbage..sometimes in some of your comments the tone of rejecting is such a intense and fierce

    I think various such sort of sanatani natures prevents many others to study our ancient rich culture

    thanks..subodh

  12. Subodh Deshpande says:

    what mr ravish kumar is asking I am reproducing once again

    “???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ”

    Thanks Subodh

  13. Subodh Deshpande says:

    hi Rudra,

    I think problem with hindi font..typing in ‘Hinglish’ what he is saying is

    “Kisi ka bhi khoon nahi kholta. Pehchaan ke nam par majdooronko delhi se bahar pheka ja ranha hai
    sabaka jamir itna darak chuka hai ki, hukumat sare aam himakat kar rahi hai. Hum sab news report se hi aapana gussa jahir karate rahenge. ies khel ka purajor virodh hona chahiye. aadhe khiladi unhee gareeb gharonse aante hai jinke gharanse aaye yeh majdoor stedium bana ranha the ”

    meaning in the name of common wealth game, government is throwing the labours out of th etown brutely. And no one is daring to utter a single word,like they have sold themseleves..the injustice of the governmetn is at peak and we will continue to raise our voice against such games. half of the players participating in such events belong to such labours families who built such stedium.

    The last sentence is really touching..and hurts badly..its like you have built your own house and some one else come and threws you out of the house.

    thnaks..subodh

  14. Rudra says:

    brahmastra ,

    thank you for the clarification about U.G. actually , i discovered UG about 10 years ago , and happened to watch/hear every one of his audio and video files on record – luckily some of his ‘guests’ ( he never seems to have accepted any disciples) recorded some of his utterings and mutterings.

    I had great fun reading about him – it is just such a great re-inforcer of the vedic path , where even by a complete ‘ vipareet’ logic , one is still able to express the goal of veda , which for me is Shiva Tattva.

    I certainly remember reading about his momentous meeting with Sri Ramana Maharshi , and how Ramana simply looked at him and asked him ‘ I can give it to you , but are can you handle it ? ‘… which for me is a hint at his eventual ‘ Calamity’.

    I think the great Ramana Maharshi’s words are full of meaning , especially since the boy UG approached him in total haughtiness and arrogance in his own knowledge.

    Thank you for sharing the profound Zen thought ‘ if you meet the buddha on the road, kill him ‘. It for me , is the transition from Saguna Brahman to Nirguna Brahman. Similar to what Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa experienced with his Guru ( or one of the Gurus ) , Totapuri.

    Totapuri was a fiery Aghori , and whereas RK was a deeply emotional Kali devotee – he could not shake her vision off for three successive days , while meditating on the Formless Brahman. Eventually when Totapuri absolutely gets mad at him for this – Rk instantly goes into the Turiya , shocking his Guru, who later tells RK – that he’d attained the transition from Form to Formless in 3 days , what took him 40 years of intense Tapas !

  15. Subodh Deshpande says:

    yes UG puts all the things what he want to say in beautiful way..I read his only one book somewhere in 8-9 years ago, found that he is playing with words more..never gave a feel that he is complete.

    about bhagwatgeeta, Ramanuja’s Tika is extremely good(although it was a marathi transalation). unless we raises to that particular level of thoughts we could not understand them..bit difficult to understand..

    this do not happens with Adi Shankaracharya, Eaikanth, Gyneshwar, Samarth Ramdas, Tukaram, Namdeo, Janabai.

    Thanks!

    Subodh

  16. Rudra says:

    Hi Subodh ,

    Thanks for clarifying the meaning of ‘Sanatani’. It is an internal state , but , the external form may be required for a few lifetimes. You cannot say who is Sanatani just by looking , in the Kali age.

    In fact this is one of the problems of the Kali Yuga – that Holiness or Sanatani aspect is recognised by externals.

    How can you guess if someone is a Sanatani from how he looks ? maybe wears cool denim jeans + t-shirts , sports a very dashing attitude by fashion and drives sporty cars , hangs out with other cool and sexy folk , is deep into the research of technology and yet is a Sanatani? I know someone who is like this 😉

    About Vanshajas – agreed – the old social order is not there , so a ‘second birth’ creating ‘dwija’ is not happening properly. In Kali Yug , birth based Varna has been predicted – which is not what the Vedic civilization originally concieved. Read about this in Jabala Upanishad ! but we are not discussing this , so compeletely irrelevant.

    ‘Apaurusheya’ aspect of the Veda is fine , but how can they be inexpressible and inexplicable / Then what are the Rishis doing down the ages ? What is Lord Sri Krishna doing , trying to express the inexpressible ?… You have to apply yourself and think why the Goal of Vedas is called ‘ Knowable’ and ‘Un Knowable’ at the same time !

    Good Luck.

  17. Harb says:

    A certain worm had numerous legs. He would very deftly walk on them. Then one day someone asked him how he manages walking on so many legs, how he knows which leg to place first which to second third and so on. He fell into thinking (knowing) that really how he did it. No sooner he fell into thinking/knowing he forgot how to walk.

    It is the same with final Truth. It is knowable because we ARE IT, it is our natural state and yet it is unknowable because we have with some trick of evolution fallen into thinking how we are It.

    Though thanks to the scheme of things of evolution through four basic forces lol we at some point on our journey are again catapulted into It, into being with It.

    If you want to read a parable from my book depicting the same turth in terms of forces you may read the post title “Unitary Consciousness”.”

    Though I do not wish to advertise my blog or book here, on second thoughts I have decided to give the link here for the ease of the readers.

    http://ruminations.selfdesigneduniverse.com/2010/09/unitary-consciounsess-copied-from-my.html

  18. Subodh Deshpande says:

    Thanks Rudra,

    Quote
    How can you guess if someone is a Sanatani from how he looks ? maybe wears cool denim jeans + t-shirts , sports a very dashing attitude by fashion and drives sporty cars , hangs out with other cool and sexy folk , is deep into the research of technology and yet is a Sanatani? I know someone who is like this
    UnQuote

    is it really can not belive it….great..to know..may be follwing can be my opnion on it..not a compareson with lord Ram but a best example to compare..

    although we are not discussing Rmayana, but manytimes it happnes that ‘Vishya Kiya Narayan’ such type of personalities do exists..and difficult to understand them and thier acts, behaviour..this is one of the reason I think..why Ram decided to take ‘Fire Test’ of Sita..which she just did not pased but enriched the ‘Agni Tatva’..whcih was missused by Ravana and not because of Ravana kidnapped her..

    Quote
    What is Lord Sri Krishna doing , trying to express the inexpressible ?… You have to apply yourself and think why the Goal of Vedas is called ‘ Knowable’ and ‘Un Knowable’ at the same time !
    UnQuote

    I could not understood lord vishnus earlier incarnations, correctly, hence difficult to comment about what Krishna..he is “Jagat Guru’ 🙂

    and I will think on what you are saying

    the Goal of Vedas is called ‘ Knowable’ and ‘Un Knowable’ at the same time !..agreed..then question remains why Bhagwan Patanajali invented Yog..was that not covered in Vedas or why he choose not to refer Vedas..

    Thanks!
    Subodh

  19. Rudra says:

    Subodh ,

    What I mean by the example is that , the state of ‘Mukti’ is unique and it does not matter how the body is covered. The guy in the example with denim jeans can be anyone. Did you hear about Emperor Janaka ? He taught high knowledge to the sage Ashtavakra , and yet did his ‘Raj Dharma’ , not like Ashoka who gave up his Dharma. This is an example.

    Another perfect example is , as you said , Lord Sri Rama- but his example is different as he was an avatar , his level of purity was greater and he showed a natural inclination for the spiritual , as a young prince. The difference between Prince Rama and Prince Siddhartha ( Buddha ) is that , Bhagavan Sri Ram had a great Vedic sage to guide him in his Vairagya state in the form of Brahmarshi Vasishta. But for Poor Siddharth , he had no Guru – so he had to work for it himself outside of the Vedic path and became Buddha.

    ‘Apaurushiya’ Veda is fully expressible and explicable – in fact expression is the soul of Veda !!! In many many ways the goal of the Veda has been expressed – as Nad Brahm , as Para Brahm , as Brahm Jyoti , as Bhagavan , etc.

    What i was hinting for you was , if Veda is inexplicable and inexpressible , how are the rishis speaking to us via the Veda ? and all that Lord Sri Krishna spoke – is it not expressed Veda ? condensed veda ?
    So if the Vedas are anything they are definitely not ‘inexpressible’ or ‘ inexplicable’.

    I think we beat this topic to death !!

    You still have to come up with a better answer for why the Vedanta is ‘ Knowable’ and ‘Un Knowable’.

    Good Luck.

  20. Subodh Deshpande says:

    Thanks Rudra,

    I fully agree with your example of Janak raja and Rishi Ashtavakra..I got what you mean..

    I missed some part while giving lord ram’s example.

    what I mean..forget for a while ram as incarnation of lord vishnu…but when it came did he not took the fire test of sita ..eventhough she was daugher of janak and wife of ram. She had learnt many things from both of them..she was really a soul of the kind ‘Vishaya Kiya Narayan’..she was in peak at the spritual level..that is why she could explain ‘Ram Tatva’ to Hanuman..
    but how it is described when she was inprisonment in Lanka..this is what I want say..like wise from your example we everybody will come to know..what reality is..

    can you please tell me which particualr rishi(Maharashi Vyas only could see Vedas in the form of light) has said that he has understood Veda completely..if so..then there are to multiple Brahamdeo only one..

    giving reference of vedas can be understood..some section of Vedas can be conveyed in the form of various scinces, arts etc..it can be called one of the invention or discovery based on vedas..not a true veda, like todays phd students take one subject and explain some of the concepts..does that mean they have understood the complete scince to which their subject belongs too..

    if you are saying it, that…the nature of ‘Soul’ ‘Atman’ is such that by practicing some scinces like yog, soul can understand ‘Known and Unknown objects..I agree with this..in that case nothing remains unknown to Soul…including veda..then why Bhagwan Patanjali invented Yog..

    Quote
    in fact expression is the soul of Veda
    Unquote

    Vedas is also expression of ‘Nam’…which remains unexpressed till you reach from where the expression has came into existence..thathappens when you became the real/realself..till the time vedas will also remain inexplicable and inexpressible…but at that moment nothing remains unknowable..that is why vedas also says Neti..Neti..

    May be you are confusing me between Ved and Vedant.all the saint, sages, incarnations expressed Vedant..not Veda..and Vedant is ‘Neti..Neti’..

    Quote
    You still have to come up with a better answer for why the Vedanta is ‘ Knowable’ and ‘Un Knowable’
    Unquote

    may be you are unlocking one door for me..who knows..:)

    Thanks!
    Subodh

  21. Subodh Deshpande says:

    Vishnu did gave vedas to Brihma..and Brihma with the help of Veda formed various rishis, some of the rishis (Valkhilya) came into existence because of Lord Mahadeo..and these rishis studied vedas..resulting into several branches of rishis studying particular vedas..and further generations of these rishis were known as brahmins who were studying vedas..none of the individual rishi was or is ever became capable of saying that ‘Vedas are now known’..some sections..some subjects came into form of different scinces, knowledge etc..

    these rishis spent infinite number of years (total collective sum) in studying differne tbranches of vedas and to give their subject of study as scince..this is I agree with..but not whole veda..experince soul, experience truth you will know everything including vedas

    thanks!

    Subodh

  22. Harb says:

    Science can give us may theories of love but can it give love? – Shekhar

    Three realms – actual, virtual and spiritual; three representatives and explorers, science, philosophy and mysticism.

    Science cannot give us love but mysticism cannot give us sex.

    Both can give us both if they unite but they don’t or can’t untill there comes a mediator in the form of a philosopher.

    And in fact you know Einstein’s famous equation gives us all the above-mentioned three realms:

    E = m (+c)2 = Science (body) – where things cannot move beyond the speed of light

    E = m (-c)2 = Philosophy (mind) – where things cannot move below the speed of light (our thoughts, otherwise nonlocal signals)

    Equation’s writer = mysticism (soul) – which gives meaning to the equation. Which puts “fire into the equations to make a universe out of them to describe” as Stephen Hawking put it in his first book “A Brief History of Time.”

    Now tell me which one you can do without lol.

  23. kavitha says:

    There are at least two somewhere in this thread who have indicated advanced experiences of oneness/truth/nirvana? (call it whatever), each seemingly having taken different paths to arrive there. Is this destination/ experience that’s experienced a homogeneous one? If so, all paths are converging to the same point? Why then do people beat each other up with claims to superiority of one approach over another that lead to this same place & experience?

    In either case, is a chosen path one of choice or destiny of the seeker?

    (PS: Rudra – a friendly correction re: your ref. to Ashtavakara Gita…it was Ashtavakra instructing Janaka, and not the other way around as you’d noted)

  24. Rudra says:

    Hello Harb ,

    smelling herbs again ? 🙂

    Firstly, i am a researcher in applied science . so i think that qualifies me to comment on science’s abilities , having played with her quite intimately,, so to speak 😉

    as a McAulean , it is hard for you to imagine that this artificial divide between science , philosophy and spirituality is a result of the Church and a Madieval western cultural context – now in mainstream.

    intellectuality without a yoke is like a free fall . no one knows where you’ll end up or in which position you’ll freeze at the end .

    remember Adi Shankara , who told us : ‘ Govindam Bhaja Moodha mate , samprapte sannihite kale , nahi nahi rakshati dukrin karane’.

    Your logic of using E= M(+c)2 and M(-c) 2 is flawed – c does not have a sign , unless you invented a new theory ! If you want to open your horizons , read about Michelson-Morley Experiment.

    We can definitely do without illogical theories .

  25. Rudra says:

    Kavitha ,

    wow , who are the two who have experienced ‘nirvana’ on this thread ? Harb and yourself must be the ones 😉 as you both sound so wise and amazingly intelligent 😉

    before ‘correcting’ something , you should quote correctly and also be sure ,what you are correcting is ‘ wrong’ in absolute terms . Did you read the ‘original and authentic’ resources yet ?

    Janaka is a family of kings – in the ancient world , they did not have a janaka 1 or janaka 2 . They were simply Janakas.

    I did not mention Ashtavakra Gita , anywhere. In the Gnan Khand of Tripura , Ashtavakra is taught by King Janaka. Later , the sage Ashtavakra , becomes a Guru to all King Janak’s descendents – and what you know as ‘Ashtavakra Gita’ , is his instructions to a descendent of the original Raja Janak.

  26. brahmastra says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHb4gs1hwck

    God hates us all! 😉

  27. Harb says:

    Rudra, first, yes, I am giving a new theory.

    Second, regarding the equation, the equation once was E2 =m2c4 so people drew only E=+mc2 from it. The equation even then gave -mc2 as well [because if E2 = (mc2)2, then E is actually = +/- (mc2)] but mainline scientists then discarded the negative value saying that we cannot have negative matter or energy.

    Then came a genius by the name of Dirac (later awarded Nobel for physics). He thought if this equaion gives minus value as well then it must also apply to a part of the world. Needless to add he eventually gave the world any-matter, now a very important aspect of universal scheme of things.

    In the same way, c2 in E = mc2 is actually also = m (+/-c)2 and even if science and common people cannot yet understand and accept this minus value I know that it also applies to a part of the world in the same above way. In fact when science will be able to put this minus value of c in Einstein’s equation it will know almost everything. Herein lies the secret of Dark energy, matter and much more. I cannot explain my whole book to you here. Beyond our usual world and anti-world there are vitual world and anti-virtual world on both sides, though going latent into each other. Much of what actually relates to humans in fact lies there.

  28. Harb says:

    Rudra, I have already discussed everything with a Doctor of Science (physics) at a blog some three years ago. Of course he did not agree with me, but if you really want to see how I showed him his own limitations even in science just go through 3 or 4 thread there.

    Open here:
    http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/reports/keynote_speeches.php

    Begin with 16th January, 2007 post given below and then read at least four or five subsequent threads. (You must read at least the next to the post given below which is actually begins with my own name.)

    http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/01/maulana_rumi_ti.html

    Read all posts at least under Harb and Avtar Singh

  29. Harb says:

    Dear Rudra, if you cannot read through lengthy threads given above here are at least a couple of paragraphs which I wrote there which show how up to date a Doctor of Science in physics is and how he was denying many things just to prove his own theory. The first paragraph I wrote in a post first. The later paragraph I wrote later.
    *****
    Below is the answer to Avtar’s “Now, let me try to explain why I chose to use photons and not other particles such as Neutrinos etc to make my arguments. Photons have known (correctly or incorrectly) to have zero mass as opposed to other particles like neutrinos that are yet to be found and whose mass is yet to be determined…”

    from The Penguin Dictionary of Science, 1986 edition:

    Neutrino: A stable elementary particle with no electric charge or rest mass but with spin 1/2…The existence of the particle has since been established experimentally, and it is known to exist in three forms: one associted with the beta decay process, one with the tau particle and the other with the muon. All form have antiparticles. It is classified as a lepton.”

    In the same way I can quote from many books to show that virtual realm/particles are now an essential part of the universal evolution (strong and weak forces in fact interact through them.)

    Here is one from Hawking’ Brief History of Time:

    “Virtual particle: In quantum mechanics, a particle that can never be directly detected, but whose existence does have MEASUREABLE EFFECTS.”

    I wonder how far I would have to go to make Avtar up to date with the latest developments of his own science, and how far I need to go, since my own real interest is not in unification, this I have already achieved within through personal experience but in seeing the evolution from THERE in terms of four basic forces.
    *****

    ANd here is the second paragraph (post)
    ******
    Dear Avtar,

    You are a scientist and I am not, yet I am amazed at your scientific ignorance. You deny anti-particles and virtual particles which are now well-accepted fact of science. I have with me a number of books of cutting-edge scientists like, “Theories of Everything” by John D Barrow, “Superforce” By Paul Davies (both Templeton Prize winners now even greater in amount than Nobel Prize), “Conversations About the Invisible” by two outstanding French scientists and one outstanding film maker besides “Dictionary of Science” and many others. I wonder if I should quote from all of them to show you, a scientist yourself, that the existence of anti particles and virtual particles is now a forgone conclusion and thus waste my time and energy on it.

    Yet, here are a few quotes for the benefit of Intentblog readers in this regard:

    “The creation of matter in the laboratory is now routine, but every newly created particle is now accompanied by a sort of “negative image” partner, know as the anti-particle….For example, an electron is always created alongwith an antielectron…Similarly, every created proton is accompanied by an antiproton. Collectively, antiparticles are known as antimatter. (Superforce By Paul Davies)

    “..particle accelerators produce matter and antimatter in equal abundance…” John D. Barrow in Theories of Everything.

    ” You are right. Antiparticles, antimatter truly exist and are not simply reflections. Everytime a sufficient quantity of energy is transformed into matter antimatter appears in equal quantity.” Michel Casse, Frech distinguished Astrophysicist in “Conversations About the Invisible.”

    In fact I can go on explaining the presence of anti matter and virtual matter even through E = +/- mc2 as well but I don’t think I should waste so much energy on it here.

    As to antimatter nowhere to be found NOW has an other explanation which I have given in my book.

    You can fool unscientific people here but no wonder real scientists will not even look at your paper showing such fundamental ignorance.

    You talk of ignoring 96% percent of the universe by others and yet the fact most cutting-edge scientists know is that this is precisely the universe which is composed of anti and virtual particles and yet you deny them and proport to know the whole universe.

    Above all, to me anti-particles and virtual particles are the very particles of which our brains and mind (thoughts) are comprised of though science is yet to go that far. And you deny them and yet proport to explain consciousness directly. Of course consciousness is the repository of (or houses)thoughts as well as the body. But denying thoughts/mind and trying to reach it directly via body though theoretically possible cannot take one too far. It will be like completely ignoring the fact of brain/mind/thoughts.

    The other day you said neutrino does not exist and I gave you a quote from a dictionary to show that its existence is now an established fact and you choose not to comment on that. I wonder if there is any use of talking to you in this way. I again reproduce the quote:

    Neutrino: A stable elementary particle with no electric charge or rest mass but with spin 1/2…The existence of the particle has since been established experimentally, and it is known to exist in three forms: one associted with the beta decay process, one with the tau particle and the other with the muon. All form have antiparticles. It is classified as a lepton.”

    All I can say in your favour is that your intuition to go towards the science of consciousness is correct and I myself have predicted in my book based on my four forces evolutionary theory that it may well become the science of the next age. But for that you will need to embrace the whole spectrum of the present advancements in science and not limit yourself to only its PHYSICAL part which you otherwise so abhor.

    Also you begin your story from zero-point energy. Zero point energy is the energy at absolute zero of temperature. But we know that temperatures go to minus levels as well. How you account for that part of the energy/world?

    Also, where you dump minus value of E in E = +/- mc2?

    Also, where you dump minus value of c in E = +/- m(=/-c)2

    Remember, before Dirac, science used to ignore the minus value of E. Then thanks to Dirac it found the whole new phenomenon of anti particle, anti matter and anti world.

    Now, science is yet to come to grip with the minus value of c. But this does not mean that someday someone will not come to account for it and thus give a whole new world representing it. I have envisioned it through my own intuition though and I call it the virtual world, of which anti-world is a subset just as our brain is a subset of our minds.

    I may also add that anti-world is to the universe as roots are to a tree and brain is to humans. So we cannot claim to know everything about the tree or humans or the universe by ignoring their root, brain, antiworld. Virtual world goes even beyond, explaining which is not necessary here.

    Best wishes, Harb

    PS: If you still want to read those threads at least go up to Feb 9, 2007 there, from which I have taken the above paragraphs.

    PS2: Anyway, you are free to accept or reject everything, no ill-will, just want to tell you that I will not write more on this topic here.

  30. Rudra says:

    Harb ,

    Define negative c and its significance ? In Integral Calculus ( which is the heart of quantum Physics and other branches of engineering) , the Complex plane comprises of the Imaginary axis – this is a mathematical formulation , intended to nominally identify and assign a virtual value , and then play in that reference frame.

    No student of science disputes that. But in your attempt to explain -c , you’ve not gone into the derivations of Einestein further – i will write in detail later. I also referred to Michelson Morley Experiment – which you did not take into account.

    The fundamental flaw is the assumption of Speed of light as a constant – which is what i was hinting at in my earlier post. What Dirac calls ‘ Anti Matter’..or what Stephen Hawking calls ‘ Dark Matter’..is nothing but the ‘Anti-Material’ particle , or Spirit. the word ‘ SPirit’ is anethema to the secular and materially limited scientists .

    Comming to the likes of you – you don’t have to invent a new theory – four fundamental forces and the rest. You may not be aware , but the entire understanding of the universe based on sense perception is a highly limited view. Vedic knowledge is Perfect in everyrespect.

    Let me explain :

    In the Vedas The Supreme Truth or the Absolute Personality of Godhead is the transcendental purusha and the two energies namely para and apara are emanations from Him. The Apara or the Inferior material energy may consist of many other elements like matter, anti-matter, proton, electron, neutron etc. in terms of physical science but according to the authority of the Vedas–all of them are produced of the inferior energy called by the name Apara Prakrti.

    The Apara Prakrti consists of gross and subtle matters like mind, ego and intelligence. Spirit is transcendental to all these. The spiritual energy para Prakrti is simultaneously one and different from the spirit whole. Qualitatively they are one but quantitatively they are different. The Brahman Ray is the effulgence of the Supreme Person.

    The Absolute Truth is therefore the Absolute Person without an equal or high competitor Personality. Impersonal Brahman Rays are the rays of His body transcendental as much as the sun rays are emanations from the sun planet.

    According to the Visnu Puranam the material energy is called Avidya or nescience which is exhibited in the fruitive activities of sense enjoyment. But the living being belongs to the group of anti-material energy or spiritual energy while he has the tendency of being illusioned and trapped by the material energy for sense enjoyment.

    In this sense the living being is the positive energy whereas the matter is the negative energy. The matter does not develop without being in contact with the superior spiritual or anti-material energy which is directly part and parcel of the spirit Whole.

    Any way the subject matter of this spiritual energy exhibited by the living being is undoubtedly very complicated thing for an ordinary man. The ordinary man is therefore astounded in the subject. Sometimes he partially understands it through the imperfect senses and sometimes he fails to know it altogether.

    The best thing is therefore to hear the grave subject matter from the highest authority of the Vedas. Bhagavad-gita is the essence of all the Upanisads and Vedanta.

    I am just trying to present the conclusion of an aspect of the Vedas and without any imperfect compromise with speculative interpretations. We have to learn the lessons of Gita from the authorized disciplic succession traditions. Unfortunately every one not in that line tries to explain Vedas in their own way and this process misguides the people.

    Sometimes , i take the effort to cunteract this disruptive tendency , and nothing is dangerous than manufactured theories outisde the divine Veda from the original source itself , which is perfect and complete all around.

  31. kavitha says:

    Ah, the dynasty…mind’s time travel did not go far back enough, I guess. Glad you are in a position to add value to imperfections in this blog. If the ‘illuminating’ power can do so with its ‘burning’ potential in check, one could be a much sought-after and much-needed gu-ru for the times, you know.

  32. PhilM says:

    Shekar,

    I just discovered your blog and started reading this entry. I was really surprised and delighted to read your first paragraph. By the time I reached the end, I was quite disappointed. I don’t know if we will ever unravel the mysteries of the universe completely. But, I don’t feel compelled to bring in the notion of God or another ill-defined concept. Modern physics does a splendid job of how the universe might have begun and I am constantly in awe of the people who have put forward these theories and verify their predictions. Even if I spend all my free time on this subject, I wouldn’t have understood every bit of this science. The last thing on my mind is brining mystic mumbo-jumbo worthy of Deepak Chopra.

    I hope you don’t take any offense to my comment. Shedding blind religious ideas we have grown up is by itself a great feat (as you have done) and accepting science for what it is is pretty hard, especially when it doesn’t address our existence in terms we can relate to. I am sorry to say, you appear to have not left God out your mind and I wonder why bother with science at all then!

    BTW, I like your films a lot!

  33. Rudra says:

    I don’t care. You can burn in ignorance or burn in light , It is pure random chance to write on this blog. I’m a nobody and nothing. Maybe Shekhar Kapur is slumbering at the wheel. Many of my posts have been blocked here – valuable posts i might add., disrupting many a critical debate and vital info.

    I even avoided writing here. I may not again , randomly. Illumination involves burning. But burning what ? is the question. the illuminator , not only Burns , but can also annihilate without trace . The Burning light of illumination is not to be dictated .

  34. kavitha says:

    Rudra,

    As much as you don’t care, I doubt if anybody here cares if you (or I or anybody else) walks in and out of this space, randomly or otherwise.

    “The burning light of illumination is not to be dictated” – totally agree. But, need to hold one’s gravitational point in space…like the sun, positioned at just the right point in orbit to illuminate, vs. scorch and burn. When the burning flame that burns itself to light up spaces, begins to burn the rest and destruct, forces of water will spring up to extinguish the destructive power of wildfires. A natural reaction.

    who is to say whether the writings here are seen as a burning light of illumination or burning light of annihilation ?

  35. Great Indian Tamasha says:

    This blog was published in the Qatar Tribune News Paper today.

  36. Rudra says:

    Hahaha.

  37. Rudra says:

    when the conflagration engulfs , hope you hold your hose pipe in the right place !

    maybe you don’t know , but the fuel of the burning sun , is water.

    since you cannot tell the difference , i’ll help you – it is definitely the burning light of annihilation, without trace. for a few ,it is also illuminating.

    Rudra’s melting pot of love is still a melting pot , usually blazing at 2900 degrees celcius.

  38. kavitha says:

    The self-declared annihilator – acceptable, but one should neither be surprised nor fret over the forces that naturally ‘block’ the annihilating heat of 2900 celsius…

  39. brahmastra says:

    “Rudra’s melting pot of love is still a melting pot , usually blazing at 2900 degrees celcius.”

    Hot damn..that was one of the subtlest, slickest ‘coming on to’ lines

  40. Rami says:

    oh the intellectual porn here is so cute, great place for ego massages. Nice.

  41. Rudra says:

    tip of the hat , ma’am. you are a true genius

  42. Rudra says:

    i don’t know of any ‘natural reaction’ that put out a forest fire. the fire will end when the fuel ends. it is always un-natural methods like fire trucks and helicopters and other contrived methods that end the forest fire , if at all.

    good luck . you can save the rhodents and snakes – they’ll love you for it.

  43. Rudra says:

    brahmastra,

    sure , i’m glad you see it that way. i’ll try it on unsuspecting damsels next time. once thy’ve evaporated at around 1500 degress c , as they approach me thinking ‘ aur paas…aur paas’ ‘ , they’ll have a vague memory of me and so will i of them..

    or , as kavitha says , there is someone out there who is armed with a water hose to ‘put out’ 2900 deg c of pure burning glory 😉

    heheh

  44. namee says:

    hi mr, shekhar kapur,
    i had always been a fan of yours, and after i went through your blog, my respect for you is doubled. moreover i am also a sagittarian.
    well, actually, i am in a very big trouble. i dont know whom to ask. i had always wanted to share my thoughts with somebody. a life partner ofcourse. when i was small, i liked the idea of confession rooms in a church but being a hindu, i never got the oppurtunity to go to a church and practice that. i have a problem. i cant trust anybody. but i so much want to speak my heart out, share thoughts with someone, but there is no single person exist in this world whom i can trust and speak out to. i get very conscious. i want to have fun in life. i want to live. but i am 25, and didnt get my life partner or the best friend. and suddenly i have got so depressed and lonely. i always lived with that hope that somewhere he exists and i will meet him and my life will be fulfilled. but lately i have realised that he actually doesnt exist. i feel as if i am cursed. i dont have any friend left. people like me and i am a friendly, lively person outside but i am suffering every minute inside. all my friends have got their special someone. i feel so lonely and cursed. and lately, i feel i am losing control over myself, i get irritated, fight with people, get angry, and cry every day. i really dont know what to do. i find no hope. all i need always is a support, andwithout that life has become such a torture for me. i am a creative person, but without a support it has become difficult for me to move on. what should i do?can you help me out. somehow i felt maybe you can help me.

  45. Himangsu Sekhar Pal says:

    Part A. Some Reflections on God and Science
    1.
    “Tegmark’s Ensembles
    Tegmark has recently proposed what he calls “the ultimate ensemble theory” in which all universes that mathematically exist also physically exist (Tegmark 1997). By “mathematical existence,” Tegmark means “freedom from contradiction.” So, universes cannot contain square circles, but anything that does not break a rule of logic exists in some universe.”
    (From: The Anthropic Coincidences:
    A Natural Explanation
    Published in The Skeptical Intelligencer, 3(3, July 1999): pp. 2-17.
    By Victor J. Stenger)

    So here we see that as per Tegmark mathematical existence implies physical existence. From the following equation of special theory of relativity
    t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
    one can see that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will be immortal. Because when v = c, then for any value of t, value of t1 will always be zero. Even if value of t is an eternity, till then value of t1 will be zero. So in one frame of reference whole of eternity may pass, but in another frame of reference not a single moment will elapse. Whoever will be in this second reference frame, will be immortal. Because even in the whole time span of an eternity he will not be older by a single second. So from this equation we see that immortality has got mathematical existence. But as per Tegmark mathematical existence implies physical existence. Therefore we can conclude that immortality has got physical existence also. This means that there is an immortal being in this universe.

    2.

    In his article “Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism” Richard Carrier has written:“When we posit a god, we are left with almost no predicted observations–theism does not predict any physical feature of the universe that we can check.”
    But this is definitely not true. First of all one will have to decide whose God one is considering. Is it Abraham’s God? Is it Jacob’s God? Or is it mystic-philosopher’s God? If it is mystic-philosopher’s God, then definitely some physical features of the universe can be predicted that can be checked and verified by the scientists. Philosopher’s God is beyond good and evil, one, all pervading, spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, etc. Since God is all pervading and spaceless at the same time, so volume of the entire universe must have to be zero. Otherwise, how can that God be spaceless? So, this is one prediction that can be made. The next prediction that can also be made is this: existence of a spaceless, timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. I have written a book in Bengali (published in 2003) in which I have shown in some great details as to how a spaceless, timeless God implies the relativity of space and time. And this last prediction has already been found to be correct. Since God is one and since everything in this universe has sprung from that one God, then everything in this universe must be ultimately reducible to one thing. This is another prediction that can be made.
    Another prediction that comes to my mind is this: God is said to be timeless. If God is really there and if that God is timeless, then there is some sort of timelessness in this universe. For timelessness to be there, time must have to be unreal by some means or other. So God-theory predicts that time must have to be unreal by some means or other. And science has shown that it is just the case. At the speed of light time becomes unreal. If there is no apparent reason for time becoming unreal, there is at least one reason as to why it should be. And that reason is God’s timelessness.
    One more prediction: God is said to be immortal. So here God-theory predicts that immortality must be found to be written somewhere, in some scientific theory or law or equation. Here also we find that science has not betrayed us. From the following equation of special theory of relativity we can see that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will be immortal.
    t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
    Now one question will definitely arise here. Is deathlessness same as timelessness? Is there no difference? This question arises because I have used the same equation for showing as to how one can be timeless as well as immortal. The answer to this question will be a very big YES. Death means some sort of change. I am very much alive at this moment. But at the very next moment I may die. But in a timeless world this very next moment will never come. So a timeless being can never die.
    So, it is not true that God-theory does not predict any physical feature of the universe that we can check. As per the definition of a good scientific theory given by Karl Popper, God-theory can be considered to be a very good scientific theory. Because it can predict something that can be checked and verified, and so it can also be falsified. Only those who are heavily prejudiced against God will decline to admit it.
    Scientist Victor J. Stenger has written:
    “Mystics state that their experience of oneness with God and the universe cannot be described in scientific terms. The more rational statement is that this experience is all in their heads.”
    But the problem is that if this God is in mystics’ heads only and not in the outside world, then whatever predictions can be made from God-theory, if at all correct, should be correct in their heads only, and not in the outside world. But since some of these predictions have already been found to be correct in the outside world, then the more rational statement is that this God is in the outside world and not in mystics’ heads only. Or, it may be that, these mystics’ heads are so very big that, like God, the entire outside world is also in their heads. That is why predictions made from God-theory have been found to be correct in the outside world. In that case mystics’ heads must be as big as the universe itself.

    3.
    Generally two things are claimed about science:
    a) Science always deals with something that is real, and not with something that is unreal, imaginary. It is in man’s power imagining anything and everything, and actually he has imagined so many things, so many worlds, and so many beings. But it is not the job of science to prove that all these imagined things, imagined worlds, imagined beings are as real as this world.
    b) Only science, and no other discipline, can give us the true picture of reality.
    Keeping these two claims about science in our mind let us proceed further to see what conclusion can be drawn from the following equation of special theory of relativity:
    t1 = t (1-v2/c2)1/2
    From this equation we have already seen that if one can move with the speed of light, then he will live eternally. So we see that here science has dealt with the idea of immortality, and that it has also shown as to how that immortality can be attained. But if the claim about science that it only deals with what is real is true, then we must conclude that like change and mortality, immortality is also a real feature of this universe. Otherwise, why has science dealt with that? But immortality can be a real feature of this universe if, and only if, there is at least one immortal being in this universe. So the presence of the above equation in a scientific theory clearly indicates that there is at least one immortal being in this universe.
    But if one is loathe admitting the existence of God, then one will have to admit that while in most of the cases science deals with something that is real, sometimes it also deals with something that is unreal, imaginary, and untrue. In that case one will also have to abandon the claim that only science can give us the true picture of reality. In the above equation science has created an impression that attaining immortality is not an impossibility whereas actually no one can be immortal. So here science has simply baffled us, confused us, misled us. And if we are allowed to use a very bad term here – I hope we will be pardoned for that – then we can even say that by showing that it is possible to be immortal, science has given us a very nice and beautiful bluff. Like so many religious bluffs, it is also a bluff, in this case given by science itself.
    So the gist of the whole matter is simply this. Science cannot hold the following two propositions as true simultaneously:
    1) God, or, any other immortal being, does not exist,
    2) Only science can give us the true picture of reality.
    If any one of the above two propositions is true, then the other one must be false.

    4.

    Mystics who have claimed that they have direct experience of God have repeatedly and unanimously told us one thing: time is unreal. If one claims that God does not exist and that mystical experience is nothing but a mere hallucination, then he must show that mystics were wrong in holding that time was unreal. Here common sense says that to do this one must have to show that time is not unreal and that in no way can it be unreal. But here science has done just the opposite; it has shown as to how and when time will become unreal. But to show that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination, one must have to show that mystics’ view regarding time was completely mistaken. As science has miserably failed to do that, so by what kind of logic is it established that mystical experience is a hallucination? If mystical experience can no longer be discarded as a mere hallucination, then by what kind of logic is it established that God does not exist?
    When man did not know that time could be unreal, his labeling of mystical experience as a hallucination was fully justified, logical and reasonable. But once it has dawned on him that at the speed of light time could become unreal, his discarding mystical experience as a hallucination is totally unjustified, illogical and unreasonable. And, it is unscientific also. As per definition a hallucination is a sensory perception without a source in the external world. When the mystic says that time is unreal, he is definitely in touch with some state where time is unreal. If he were not, he would not have said time was unreal. But he wrongly and erroneously thinks – and believes also – that this timeless state is in the real, external world. But if mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination, then as per its definition this timeless state cannot be in the real world. Because, if this timeless state is in the real world, then mystical experience is not a hallucination. And if mystical experience is not a hallucination, then it cannot be said that God does not exist. But since atheists and scientists claim that God does not exist, then mystical experience must have to be a hallucination. So, if necessary, then even by hook or crook, it will have to be established that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination. For that it must have to be ensured that this timeless state can never be in the external world. And for that, it must further have to be ensured that time can never be unreal in the external world. But we find that this last condition is not fulfilled at all. It is not fulfilled because science has shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal. Since time can also be unreal in the external world, then there is every possibility that this timeless state is in the external world. And if this timeless state is in the external world, then mystical experience cannot be called a hallucination. And if mystical experience is not a hallucination, then God is real.

    5.

    Science is supposed to deal with something that is real, that is existent, that is of this world, and not with something that is unreal, imaginary, and non-existent. If God does not exist, then that God is a fictitious, imaginary Being. Whatever has been said about that imaginary God cannot be true, cannot be real. If God does not exist, then there is no one in this universe about whom it can be said that He is immortal, spaceless, timeless, all pervading etc. So, if God does not exist, then the terms immortality, spacelessness, timelessness etc. will have no meaning at all. These are all imaginary concepts attributed to some imaginary Being. Then why will science, which is supposed to be concerned with only what is real, what is existent, what is of this world, show that all these imaginary concepts have got some sort of scientific explanation? Why will science show that if one can move with the speed of light, then one can be immortal, timeless, etc.? If God is also not real, then how do those imaginary concepts attributed to that imaginary being somehow become part of a real world by being explained scientifically?
    Has science ever been found to give proof for the existence of any non-real, imaginary thing? Has science ever been found to give proof for the existence of any non-real, imaginary being? Has science ever been found to offer explanation for the occurrence of any imaginary event? Is science famous for doing all these things? Has science proved that ghosts are real? Has science proved that there is a place called heaven where every human being goes after his or her death? Does science think that real human blood can come out of the wounds of a stone or wooden Jesus? Can one give any single instance where science has supported any single human superstition or folly? If science has never been found to give proof for any single imaginary thing or being, and if science has never been found to offer explanation for any single imaginary event, then why is it that it has on its own given explanation for these imaginary concepts? Why is there an exception here at all? What is the reason behind this? What does it want to make us understand by giving scientific explanation to these imaginary concepts? Does it want to make us understand that these are not imaginary concepts at all? Does it want to make us understand that these are real concepts having meaning and significance in some real context in a real world? Does it want to make us understand God is real?
    Perhaps this is the greatest irony in the whole history of our human civilization so far: science has explained that very God whose existence it has vehemently denied. If God does not exist, then those scientists who have given us special theory of relativity should not be called proper scientists at all. And if God does not exist, then special theory of relativity is not a proper science at all; it is simply a pseudo-science, something like astrology. To call it a science is an insult to human reason and understanding.

    Part B. SOME RESPONSES RECEIVED

    The problem is that in order for this equation to be true you have to be talking about a material object(being). When V=C you are saying that the object is going the speed of light. This can’t happen as the mass becomes infinite at C. In short you would turn into your own black hole. Furthermore, it would take an infinite amount of energy to get to C. All that is impossible. Now if you are talking about an immaterial being, then none of the equation applies.

    An immortal being in literature can usually do stuff. The type of immortality described here consists of existence as a popsicle, frozen in time. This would be no fun at all!

    OK: a timeless being can’t do anything because events happen in time. Sure you’d be immortal at the speed of light, because time would be frozen for you. Behold the incredible frozen God!

    Predictions only count if, well, they are made in advance of the finding. Already knowing the findings of relativity theory and then claiming that your version of God predicts them is, if not delusional, at least cheating.

    Plus I don’t see any good reason to accept Tegmark’s proposition that mathematical possibility implies physical existence anyway. With only one universe to observe we can’t make ANY substantial claims about the probability of any of its properties. We have no way of knowing whether physical laws could have varied at all, let alone by how much. Theological skepticism doesn’t need multiple universes to explain why this particular universe is only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% inimical to life as we know it instead of 100% because you can’t determine the odds when all you’ve seen is one result. Maybe there are multiple universes, maybe there aren’t, maybe all mathematically possible universes exist, maybe they don’t. None of these situations has positive implications for the existence of God absent evidence that God is not imaginary.

    Part C. MY RESPONSE

    Regarding Tegmark’s argument: Here my main intension was not to prove the existence of God, but to expose the hollowness of his argument. If scientists claim that mathematics can prove the existence of multiverses, then I will also claim that mathematics has already proved the existence of a timeless, deathless being, in which case we no longer need any multiverse theory to explain the fact that our universe is life-supporting.
    Regarding immortality: It may be there is no immortal being in this universe. It may be there is no God. But the fact still remains that science has shown that in this universe to be immortal is not an impossibility. For that only one will have to be massless, because Einstein has shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. So, if there is a being that is massless, then that being will be immortal. If human being possesses a soul, and if that soul is massless, then that soul will also be immortal. Here the question is not whether a massless being does at all exist. Neither is it a question whether human being really possesses a soul or not. The real question is: why in this universe has it been found that it is not impossible to be immortal? The real question is: why has Mother Nature kept such a provision in its scheme of things? And, for whom has it kept that provision?
    Now regarding cheating: This charge of cheating brought against me is baseless, as anyone going through my article carefully can find it out himself. Let me first quote what has been written in one of the responses:
    “Predictions only count if, well, they are made in advance of the finding. Already knowing the findings of relativity theory and then claiming that your version of God predicts them, is, if not delusional, at least cheating.”
    So, there is no doubt that I have cheated. But the person who has brought this accusation against me has forgotten that in my article I have mentioned that at least five predictions can be made from God-theory, out of which only three have so far been found to be correct. Let me repeat them once again:
    a) Space and time must be relative,
    b) Time must have to be unreal by some means or other,
    c) Immortality must be found to be written somewhere, in some scientific theory or law or equation.
    d) Volume of the entire universe must be found to be zero,
    e) Everything in this universe must be ultimately reducible to one-thing,
    In the first three cases above he might have said that I have cheated, because, really, these are the findings of relativity theory. But if he holds that I have cheated in the other two cases also, then will he please take the trouble to give us the name(s) of the scientific theory/theories of which these are the findings? If he cannot, then he should admit that he has brought a false and baseless charge against me, for which he should apologize. Actually, by showing that these two predictions can also be made from God-theory, I have taken a very great risk. Because if they do not come true, then one day God-theory will eventually be falsified. And then there will be no hope left for us.
    But still I think there will be some hopes left. At least what the Russian scientist Andrei Linde has said to Tim Folger in a completely different context raises some hopes in us. Let us first see what he has actually said:
    “When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.
    “What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I’m not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’”.”
    [From: Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse theory, By Tim Folger, published online November 10, 2008, DISCOVER Magazine.]
    So, here lies the hope. First, eliminate all the impossible theories. Then the theory that remains, even if improbable, must be the truth.
    As per the scientists God does not exist, because so far there is no proof for His existence, and perhaps there will never be any. But it is also true that man believes in God. So, it is a fact that man believes in God in spite of the fact that there is no God. This fact also requires some sort of explanation. Some explanations have been offered so far by some eminent thinkers and philosophers, but none of these theories are adequate enough to explain certain aspects of that imaginary God. So it can be said that all their theories, all their hypotheses are failed theories, failed hypotheses.
    If God does not exist, then God did not create man, instead man has created God. So it is quite expected that he will create that God in such a way that He can satisfy all his needs. Man will definitely not create a God who is not merciful. He will definitely not create a God who is not immortal, because a mortal God cannot bestow immortality on others. For that purpose God Himself must have to be immortal. These points are easily understood. So we can understand why man-created God is benevolent, merciful, all-loving, all powerful, immortal, etc. & etc. But what about that God who is spaceless, timeless? Why was it necessary to imagine that God as such? What are the specific needs of man that can only be met by a spaceless, timeless God? If God did not have these attributes, then what would have been lost to man? A real God might have to have these attributes; there might be some philosophical justifications for that. But why should an imaginary God? Does anybody have any answer? Then what about Hindu’s Brahma who is indifferent to man’s sorrows and sufferings? What about that Brahma who is without any qualities, without any attributes (Nirguna Brahma)? A Nirguna Brahma cannot have benevolence even, so He cannot even do any single benevolent act. So what purpose does such a Brahma serve to man? Man can easily do without Him. And so, why in the first place will he take the trouble on him to create such a Brahma, and then declare that He doesn’t care for us? All such queries remain unanswered, unexplained. So all these theories, all these hypotheses so far offered to explain man’s belief in God are impossible theories, impossible hypotheses. So, according to Konan Doyle, they need to be eliminated mercilessly. Therefore the only theory that ultimately remains is the correct theory. The theory that simply says: Man believes in God, because there is a God.
    If our atheist and scientist friends are not satisfied at all with this theory, then they are always at liberty to offer their own theory here. But whatever new theory they are going to offer, that theory must possess one essential property that none of their old theories had possessed so far. It must have the capability of giving a satisfactory answer to our long-standing and so far unresolved question: WHY SHOULD AN IMAGINARY GOD HAVE TO BE SPACELESS, TIMELESS AT ALL? TO SATISFY WHAT BASIC NEEDS OF MAN WAS HE COMPELLED TO CREATE A GOD WITH SUCH PARTICULAR ATTRIBUTES? If they cannot offer any such theory, then they should keep their mouth shut and accept our theory as the only correct theory here: MAN BELIEVES IN GOD, BECAUSE THERE IS A GOD. THE GOD WE BELIEVE IN IS A REAL GOD. AND A REAL GOD MUST HAVE TO BE SPACELESS, TIMELESS, AS OTHERWISE HE WILL BE BOUND BY SPACE-TIME.

    H.S.PAL

  46. Amit Singh says:

    Very beautiful.

    Thank you Shekhar. Very very beautiful.

    Love

    Amit

  47. Cosmos says:

    I don’t Know ….. Trying to find …but keeps coming back to me…I…Self

  48. Dave says:

    It is the person choice to believe in God or not. I feel like coercing someone to believe this religon is right and that the others are not, is wrong. Which I feel like some people turn away from religion because of that reason. A person has to think for him or herself. God gives people free will for a reason.

    http://qoollad.blogspot.com/2010/11/meaning-of-life-my-opinion.html

  49. There are many ideas , physical and conceptual to proves or disprove the existanc of God. you can select any thing that makes you happy. And to share your idea with others , I think is not wrong. Ultimately it is the person concern to accept. But at the same time some one who has alraedy formed an idea must also realise, and that is what I think, that his idea is not greater than how he loves(not cause harm) his fellow being.

  50. the plethora of comments! the eanestness of the debate!

    but – – – are you any closer to the answer, dear blog author?

Leave a Reply