Does God Exist?

There are things that we know exist even though we can never see them, because we see their traces.  For example, we can know whether a star has a planet rotating around it even though our telescopes do not allow us to see that planet.  What we see is a small wobble in the star and we deduce that this wobble is the result of the gravitational pull of a planet. We can even calculate the size and the distance of the planet to the star by measuring the wobble.

In the subatomic world there are particles that we can’t see.  But we know for a fact that they exist because of the footprint that they leave behind.  For example, the size of string, the smallest particle of matter, in relation to an atom is believed to be that of a tree in relation to the solar system.  However, mathematical calculations lead us to believe that they exist and they provide the basis of the Theory of Everything, the theory that unites the quantum world with the Newtonian universe – the minute and the large.

So, although it is futile to search for God, we can search whether there is a footprint that we can attribute to him.  In the past people wondered who makes the rain, the wind, and forces the sun to go round.  Since they could not figure these out they thought a powerful deity must be behind each one of them.  That was the origin of polytheism.

Out of polytheism monotheism evolved.  Although the origin of monotheism cannot be traced accurately, The Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, Marduk from tutelary of Babylon and Zoroaster (usually placed in the early Iron Age) were the earliest monotheists recorded in history.

Today, we know what causes rain, wind and makes the sun go round and we don’t attribute them to God or gods anymore.  However, we have discovered more questions such as what caused the Big Bang.  Why it went off?  When we find no answer we say it must have been God.

Recently, physicists have come up with a new theory – the M theory and the parallel universes, or the multiverse theory that if proven right it will explain what caused the Big Bang.  We may actually be very close to know the answer.  The Large Hedron Collider may provide the answer in the coming years.  This theory says that the universe is a two dimensional membrane like a sheet of paper. (M stands for membrane.)  To us it looks three dimensional, because we live in the thickness of the membrane.  Some physicists believe the universe is a bubble.  It is still a membrane but it forms a bubble, like a balloon. If you travel in one direction and keep going you will end up to where you started your journey. Inside and outside the balloon, there is nothing – no space.  It just does not exist in our dimensions.  There are infinite universes that float like bubbles – many of them just like ours.  In fact there could be duplicates of you in many of them who live different lives.  At one point they were joined with you and then they split and entered in another dimension. You can no longer contact yourself in other universes, even though they are right where you are. (For the record, I don’t believe in that. It is too weird even for the science)  Universes are constantly born and burst out of existence.  When they collide, they sometimes merge and sometimes cause a Big Bang, giving birth to a new universe.   You thought fiction is crazy?  Reality seems to be a lot stranger. Or is it that our scientists have gone mad?

The Large Hedron Collider may unveil the answer to the origin of the universe.

If this weird theory is proven right, the Big Bang would not have needed a creator.  The Big Bang can be explained in the same way that the movement of the sun in the sky is explained.   And this will force the God theorists to find another puzzle to justify God.

God provides an answer to our ignorance.  It is a theory.  The difference between this theory and scientific theories is that it allows no scrutiny.  It is based on faith.  While the proponents of scientific theories are constantly challenging their own theories and shifting its borders, the advocated of God theory will not move an inch until they are overrun by science.  Then they drag their battered theory a bit further and find another employment for God.

However, can we dismiss God altogether?  Is he superfluous?  Quantum theory posits that matter behaves either as particle or as wave, depending on whether it is observed or not.  If it is observed it acts like particle and matter is formed and if it is not observed it acts as wave and things do not materialize.  Therefore, it follows that everything you see and the world around you comes to being because someone, say you, observe it.  But as Descartes pointed out, you must exist to observe and hence someone must be observing you.   This leaves room for an ultimate observer that is not a thing and who observes everything.  It is a non being that creates the being by observing it. Could this ultimate observer be God?  Someone must be observing the universe for it to come to existence.  Does this mean that science has made God indispensable?

It is interesting to note that Hindu philosophers believed that the universe is the dream of gods. In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan explains, “There is the deep and appealing notion that the universe is but a dream of the god who, after a hundred Brahma years, dissolves himself into a dreamless sleep. The universe dissolves with him – until, after another Brahma century, he stirs, recomposes himself and begins again to dream the cosmic dream. Meanwhile, elsewhere, there are an infinite number of universes, each with its own god dreaming the cosmic dream.”

Sagan then says, “These great ideas are tempered by another, perhaps greater. It is said that men may not be the dreams of gods, but rather that the gods are the dreams of men.”

He may be right and he may not be. He may be right because the gods that people envision are figments of their imagination.  At the same time, if the universe can exist only when it is observed, then there can be a kernel of truth in what Hindu philosophers had thought.

Could we one day find out that God exists after all?  Even if God exists, it would be a non being reality.  If God is pure consciousness, it is a non-being.  Non being realities cannot be measured, therefore they can not be demonstrated and proven. The question, “show me consciousness,” is moot. Consciousness cannot be shown or proven.

Said that, let me also say that whether God exists or not, it has nothing to do with a psychopath marauder called Muhammad.  That is where the fallacy lies.  If God exists should we believe in David Koresh,  and Joseph Koni? These sick individuals had no understanding of God. Muhammad’s definition of God is puerile and asinine.

We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.  But we can prove that Muhammad was a mentally sick man.  This is an important distinction.  In my book, Understanding Muhammad, I have proven that the prophet of Islam was a crack pot.  If we find God, it will not be the Allah of Muhammad.  We cannot prove that God does not exist, but we can prove that Allah is the figment of the imagination of a mentally deranged man.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Udaybhanu Chitrakar says:

    Who will tell us how space and time become non-existent for light?

    Summary: Light exists in space and time, and it is not forcibly or artificially deprived of space and time. Still space and time are non-existent for light. What is the cause of it?

    If there is an entity that exists neither in space nor in time, then space and time will be non-existent for that entity purely naturally. I am not saying that such an entity does really exist in nature, but only showing here how they can be non-existent for any entity by purely natural means. For no entity other than this can space and time be non-existent purely naturally. If an entity exists in space and time, and if we forcefully or by some other means deprive it of space and time, then of course space and time will be non-existent for it also. But we cannot say that they are non-existent purely naturally, because we have applied force or some other means here. So the conclusion is that for any entity existing in space and time, and not forcefully or otherwise deprived of them, space and time cannot be non-existent purely naturally.

    Now can we say about light that it exists neither in space nor in time? Can we say about it that it has been forcefully or otherwise deprived of space and time? Can we say about any entity of this universe that it exists neither in space nor in time, that it is beyond space and time? If there is such an entity, then what is that entity? If there is any one on this earth who has any idea about its existence, then let him/her come forward and enlighten us also about its existence. If we see that no one is coming forward, then we will have to conclude that no such entity really exists in this universe for which space and time will be non-existent purely naturally. But in spite of all these, what do we see actually? We see that space and time are non-existent for light. Yes, space and time are non-existent for light. As per the theory of relativity space and time become non-real or non-existent for light, because their values become zero. If there are two points A and B, and if the distance between A and B becomes zero, then we cannot say that there is any space in between A and B. Distance becoming zero, time will also become zero.

    A man may be poor; but with his sincere effort and hard labor one day he may become rich. Once he becomes rich, we will not say that he is still poor. Rather we will say that he is now rich. In a similar vein we can say that once space and time become non-existent for light, they are non-existent for it. Thus for light space and time do not exist, they are simply non-existent. Can one give any reason as to how space and time become non-existent for light when we know very well that they cannot be so purely naturally?

    I have shown that due to only two causes space and time can be non-existent for an entity:
    1) Cause A: If the entity is neither in space nor in time. This is the natural cause; and
    2) Cause B: If the entity is in space and time, and if it is forcibly or otherwise deprived of space and time. This is the unnatural cause.
    If space and time are non-existent for light neither due to cause A nor due to cause B, then what is its cause? Who will tell us?
    Here “purely naturally” will mean not due to any outside cause.

    In the above article I have posed a question. If that question can be answered by science without invoking any kind of God or gods, then there is no God or gods. In case science fails to do that, then here, and here only, God will show up by proving to be necessary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s