Neuroscience and Spirituality: Introduction

@Jsnsndr For Dummies: An Introduction

Melvin L Morse MD (spiritualscientific.com)

(Please note Dr. Snyder has absolutely no responsibility for the content of this blog.  I am using him as an example of a cutting edge brilliant neuroscientist and my opinion of how his work will transform spirituality as we know it)

The Mind controls the brain.  This is an obvious but often overlooked fact.  You decide if you are gong to take a nap, that decision triggers massive changes throughout your brain.  You decide if you want to read, causing activity in the left side of your brain.  If you play music, now the right side is working and the left relatively quiet.

If you are a Reiki healer, or having sudden intuition, you are using your brain.  If you are a police officer in a life threatening situation, and you suddenly had an awareness of being out of your body, and see something in that out of body state that saved your life, you have just used your brain.  If you are a Shaman, or a remote viewer, or have had a transforming spiritual experience, you have used your brain to have these experiences.  If we can use the mind to heal, we must also use our brains. 

Consciousness came first.  Yet it is expressed in this reality through our bodies and brains.  When you think a mean thought, you shower your body with hundreds of neuropeptides that act in virtually every area of your body.  The same thing happens when you think a happy thought.

Isn’t it time we learned how to use our brains to maximize our spiritual potential?  I am tired of the “Wow” of spirituality, case studies of miraculous healings, stories of remarkable personality transformations and the like.  I want to know how to do it.  I want to know the “How” of how to use our brains to best understand intuition and spirituality.

The United States Military takes psychic and spiritual issues seriously.  Through rigorous study and training, blending physics, science, and brain science, they can do astonishing things with the mind.  Why hasn’t the civilian world kept up with these new understandings? For a simple reason.  If you are going to rely on information from a remote viewer to rescue a hostage, you want to make sure that this is something real.  We don’t take spiritual healing as seriously.  It is sequestered in a little Office of Alternative Medicine, put in the same category as massage therapy, music therapy and herbal baths.  It isn’t “real” medicine.

Understanding the neuroscience of the past 20 years will change all that.  Right now, our research team can remote view and  identify plants infected with viruses similar to the AIDS virus and hepatitis C, with 92% accuracy.  Why would human trials be any different.  How did we do it? By understanding the neuroscience of spirituality.

Aren’t you tired of hearing that it’s “just the placebo effect?”  Hey, 12% of patients who have placebo rubbed on their scalp will grow hair! Don’t you want to know how that works?  Aren’t you tired of reading about how severe eczema patients will respond transiently to hypnosis? Haven’t we heard enough that patients who dissociate can either develop or cause allergies to disappear when they dissociate, and it’s just in their minds?

Well, if the placebo effect and dissociative mental events that effect the body are “just in the mind”, then they are also “just in the brain”. Let’s figure out how it works!

I will be writing a series of blogs on Neuroscience and spirituality.  There is a growing consensus among serious scientists that the brain itself is not adequate to describe consciousness.  This information is not yet fully appreciated by physicians, alternative health care practitioners, or the general public.  The profound revolution in brain science in the past 20 years has profound implications for spiritual practice, energetic healing, religion, faith, and medicine.  Yet the general public still perceives science and spirituality as being separate.  Far from being separate, we can now look to science to guide us in many of spirituality and religion’s most vexing issues.  These series of blogs will address these issues.  Ultimately I will transfer them to essays for my website, and a book.  For now, these blogs serve as a rough format, and my hope is that others will comment and contribute.

Much of this revolution in brain science began in the early 1990s with work done by Karl Pribram on neural networks.  An astonishing conference was held in the early 1990s, the proceedings of which were published under the title Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data.Dr. Pribram and Sir John Eckles were the guiding mentors of the conference. Contributions were made in areas of nanotechnology, perceptual processing, and the neurodynamics of consciousness.  The word “quantum” was thrown around a lot, as it was in the 1990s, as a catch all to explain the unexplainable.  Regardless of the accuracy of the perception that quantum processes can explain brain function, these papers are important in that they clearly state that previous efforts to explain consciousness fails.  A dramatic new approach is needed.

The momentum of this initial conference has continued.  Most recently, Robert Lanza, one of the brightest physicians alive today, published an article in American Scientist outlining what he calls Biocentrism.  By this he means that consciousness is a fundamental property of the Universe.  The material world evolved to support consciousness.  He considers time and space to be “tools” of the brain, in its work of integrating consciousness with this material reality. Robert Lanza is one of our top scientists in cloning research.  Within a decade, we may be able to grow a Universal blood supply and grow organs for transplant in the laboratory because of his research. I am glad he is also thinking about consciousness and spirituality, given the ethical implications of his research.

In June, 2010, mainstream scientists from all over the world will meet at George Washington University School of Medicine to discuss brain science and consciousness.  The fact that the meeting is organized by the US Spiritist Organization is astonishing.  The Spiritists are an organization of scientists and physicians, primarily from Brazil who believe that spirits are real forces in this reality.  That such a group could attract major scientists who are only being paid expenses to attend shows how deep this new understanding of the brain has penetrated into the scientific world.

Why am I calling this effort @jsnsndr For Dummies?  Dr. Snyder is a post PhD fellow at the National Institutes of Health.  He studies the hippocampus of man, specifically neuro-regeneration.  This means new brain cells growing within the brain.  Not only within the brain, but the specific area of the brain having to do with memory, learning, our sensory stream of information from reality, and in turn time and space.

(Please note: Dr. Snyder has nothing to do with this blog. I have no idea if he shares my ideas.  He may be a rigid materialistic thinker of the Old School for all I know.  It doesn’t matter. His research typifies the type of cutting edge research of this century that will ultimately revolutionize spirituality.)

Think about it.  An area of the brain having to do with memory and learning.  That doesn’t mean much to the average person reading these words.  That’s why I am calling this For Dummies, after the popular “For Dummies” books.

Our personalities, who we are, are all about learning and memory.  If we did not have continuity of memory, we would not be the unique persons we are.  Mediums, who purportedly contact the Dead, are claiming to access the memories of Dead people.  Those who have near death experiences say that they learn something at the end of life.  Regardless of what they learn, the fact that they are conscious and learning something implies the hippocampus is involved.

Memory and learning!  The hippocampus has been called “the man in the machine”.  Who we are, our dreams, our aspirations, our sense of connectedness to life, has everything to do with memory and learning.

If this new understanding of the brain has anything to do with god and spirituality, then the hippocampus is where we need to look first.

I picked @jsnsndr simply because I follow him on Twitter.  We must personalize this new science of spirituality, in my opinion.  I am tired of the “great man” or “guru” approach to spirituality.  One message of the New Paradigm is that we are all directly connected to a “god” or source of spiritual inspiration.  For too long, we have depended on charismatic individuals who tell us what to think, what is right, what is wrong.  I even cringe at the Depok Chopras and Michael Sherman’s of our current society.  To be sure, they do good work.  But they in turn have inspired people who study them, instead of studying this new information on how science can help us understand our own spirituality.

We live in exciting times.  This is not the time for dogma, or to blindly follow our elders or those who have gone before us.  This is a time for new thinking and new approaches, combining ancient wisdom with new science.  I recently reread The Mysteries of the Mind, by Wilder Penfield.  Perhaps we need to go back several generations, to learn again from giants like Penfield, to understand this new science.

Yet the dry academic approach will not work either.  My approach is a different one.  My wife and I have simply decided to let all you in on our live, see for yourself how this information has effected us, as normal ordinary human beings.  So far, it has worked.  I am thrilled at the letters and emails I get that both tell me how wrong we are and yet how the information we shared meant something to the writer’s life in their own personal terms.

New mediums such as Twitter encourage this blend of personality and information being shared.  I don’t want to be a “guru” in this field, even though I published four best selling books.  It is precisely because I published four best selling books that I see clearly the limitations of that approach, that one person has all the answers.

I don’t have all the answers, or even all the questions.

So, I picked on Jason Snyder because he is on Twitter and for me, is a symbol of what spirituality will look like 20 years from now.  We must move from the WOW to the HOW.  We must learn to use this new information to transform our spiritual practices and our medical system.

Sam Harris wrote an astonishing book The End of Faith. He is both a neuroscientist and religious philosopher.  But he didn’t tell us what will replace blind faith in authority figures.  Hopefully, @Jsnsndr will begin to show us what the future will look like.

Check out Jason Snyder’s website at

http://functionalneurogenesis.com/. It may not seem like the spirituality you are comfortable with, but it is the building blocks of the spirituality of the future.

No worries, I am going to explain it all to you.  Once you understand it, in plain English, soon,you will be talking in tongues, raising the Dead, remote viewing your neighbor’s bedroom, and healing your Uncle Mike of lung cancer.  Well, maybe not yet.

But you will certainly understand your own spirituality better. You will be able to understand what is an intuition and what is a fear anxiety based decision. You will be able to understand your own spiritual intuitions, visions and dreams. You will be able to sort out what part of them was from a “god” and what part you just invented to make sense of it all!

Wow, all that, and Dr. Snyder has really cool pictures on his website too!!

About Melvin Morse

Melvin L Morse MD, a former Pediatric Intensivist, was a pioneer in Near Death Research, particularly in children. His books Closer to the Light, Transformed by the Light and Where God Lives: How Our Brains are connected to the Universe, are International Best Sellers. He has post graduate training in Neuroscience from the University of Washington. He was an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the U of W for 20 years. He is a neuroscientist and Board Certified Pediatrician. Dr. Morse was honored by Best Doctors as being one of the best Pediatricians in America from 1996-2006. He has numerous teaching awards and honors. He has published extensively in the medical literature on near death experiences, consciousness, and Reiki/energetic healing. He currently is in part-practice of Pediatrics in Delaware. He and his wife run the SpiritualScientific Institute, a small consciousness research group. They have been honored by the World Health Organization for their recent research and are presenting at the upcoming Science of Consciousness 2011 Conference in Stockholm. Dr. Morse's current research interests include 1) Spiritual Neuroscience: an understanding the hardware of spiritual understandings 2) Controlled Remote viewing, which he considers to be a window into the near death experience. 3) The right temporal lobe, our "god spot" which connects our brains to the divine. This “god spot” has been more recently been extended by Mario Beauregard MD to be the “Spiritual Brain”. His book Spiritual Brain presents a greater understanding of our brain as a filter of consciousness. 3) Reiki and energetic healing 4) Applications of near death experiences to death and dying, hospice and our cultural understanding of death 5) Medical applications of remote viewing. Dr. Morse lives with his wife and two children in Lower Slower Delaware. He and his wife are one of the few civilian remote viewing teams in the United States.
This entry was posted in Spiritual Neuroscience and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Neuroscience and Spirituality: Introduction

  1. Angela says:

    IQ and EQ are both needed. It’s kinda like Poker-”know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” Remember that song? Anyway, you need IQ just to play. The EQ to make the decisions.

  2. Rob says:

    I have found it frustrating to explain to others that which seems most probable, logical and scientific to me. I am left with my mouth open and nothing getting through. You have with simple genious thrown out the bull and opened up a new dimension of understanding that has been looking at us square in the face for years. Thank You.

  3. Himangsu Sekhar Pal says:

    ON GOD AND TIMELESSNESS

    Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it from eminent philosophers. Richard M. Gale has said that if time is unreal, then 1) there are no temporal facts, 2) nothing is past, present or future and 3) nothing is earlier or later than anything else (Book: The philosophy of time, 1962). Bertrand Russell has also said something similar to that. But he went so far as to say that science, prudence, hope effort, morality-everything becomes meaningless if we accept the view that time is unreal (Mysticism, Book: religion and science, 1961).
    But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “What is your purpose here? Are you trying to popularize mystical world-view amongst us? If not, then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? When his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, Einstein wrote in a letter to his widow that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Another scientist Paul Davies has also written in one of his books that time does not pass and that there is no such thing as past, present and future (Other Worlds, 1980). Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?
    Now some scientists are trying to establish that mystics did not get their sense of spacelessness, timelessness through their meeting with a real divine being. Rather they got this sense from their own brain. But these scientists have forgotten one thing. They have forgotten that scientists are only concerned with the actual world, not with what some fools and idiots might have uttered while they were in deep trance. So if they at all explain as to how something can be timeless, then they will do so not because the parietal lobe of these mystics’ brain was almost completely shut down when they received their sense of timelessness, but because, and only because, there was, or, there was and still is, a timeless state in this universe.
    God is said to be spaceless, timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless, timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S can mean:
    a) Nothing was/is spaceless, timeless in this universe (A),
    b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (B),
    c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (C).
    It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become two meaningless words, because by these two words we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless, timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in future, then time will not be unreal in future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, these are none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no correspondence whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.
    Now can we accept B as the proper meaning of S? No, we cannot. Because there is no real difference in meaning between this sentence and S. Here one supernatural being has been merely replaced by another supernatural being. So, if S is true, then it can only mean that not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless. Now, what is this “something else” (SE)? Is it still in the universe? Or, was it in the past? Here there are two possibilities:
    a) In the past there was something in this universe that was spaceless, timeless,
    b) That spaceless, timeless thing (STT) is still there.
    We know that the second possibility will not be acceptable to atheists and scientists. So we will proceed with the first one. If STT was in the past, then was it in the very recent past? Or, was it in the universe billions and billions of years ago? Was only a tiny portion of the universe in spaceless, timeless condition? Or, was the whole universe in that condition? Modern science tells us that before the big bang that took place 13.7 billion years ago there was neither space, nor time. Space and time came into being along with the big bang only. So we can say that before the big bang this universe was in a spaceless, timeless state. So it may be that this is the STT. Is this STT then that SE of which mystics spoke when they said that God is spaceless, timeless? But this STT cannot be SE for several reasons. Because it was there 13.7 billion years ago. And man has appeared on earth only 2 to 3 million years ago. And mystical literatures are at the most 2500 years old, if not even less than that. So, if we now say that STT is SE, then we will have to admit that mystics have somehow come to know that almost 13.7 billion years ago this universe was in a spaceless, timeless condition, which is unbelievable. Therefore we cannot accept that STT is SE. The only other alternative is that this SE was not in the external world at all. As scientist Victor J. Stenger has said, so we can also say that this SE was in mystics’ head only. But if SE was in mystics’ head only, then why was it not kept buried there? Why was it necessary for the scientists to drag it in the outside world, and then to show as to how a state of timelessness could be reached? If mystics’ sense of timelessness was in no way connected with the external world, then how will one justify scientists’ action here? Did these scientists think that the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world? And so, when these mystics got their sense of timelessness from their head only and not from any other external source, then that should only be construed as a state of timelessness in the real world? And therefore, as scientists they were obliged to show as to how that state could be reached?
    We can conclude this essay with the following observations: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then SE cannot be in the external world. Because in that case mystics’ sense of spacelessness, timelessness will have a correspondence with some external fact, and therefore it will no longer remain a hallucination. But if SE is in mystics’ head only, then that will also create a severe problem. Because in that case we are admitting that the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists. That is why when mystics get their sense of timelessness from their brain, that sense is treated by these scientists as a state of timelessness in the real world, and accordingly they proceed to explain as to how that state can be reached. And we end up this essay with this absurd statement: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists.

  4. Himangsu Sekhar Pal says:

    Proof That There Is A God
    Or
    Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden

    A, Properties of a Whole Thing

    If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

    Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.

    B. CLIMAX

    I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
    Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
    I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
    1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
    2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
    3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
    4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
    5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
    6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
    7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.

  5. Himangsu Sekhar Pal says:

    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 sound answer to this age-old question. Let us first see how Hawking has helped us by providing the necessary clue. In his book “A Brief History of Time” (Chapter: The origin and fate of the universe) he informs us that there are 1080 particles in the region of the observable universe. Then he raised the question regarding the origin of these particles, and gave the answer himself. According to quantum theory particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But there the question does not stop. Another question props up regarding the origin of that energy. But when it is said that total energy of the universe is exactly zero, then all is said and done. So this is the clue: if we can somehow 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 to 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 saying 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 that God into consideration. In other words, if there is a God, 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 are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not believe that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying so they will admit that there is a God. They cannot say that the behind-the-picture God has always remained behind the picture, and that He has in no way come into the picture when they have made this calculation, because by saying so they will again 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 total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both 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 some sort of light. So, if God is there, then God will also be light, and therefore He will be 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. (Book: A History of Western Philosophy, Ch: Plato’s Utopia). 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. Mystics usually say that their God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.
    So, why should there be any need of 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 raising question 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 stopped. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully stopped 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>