Fine Tuning Argument not Required for Proving the Existence of God

It is not actually necessary that “fine tuning” of certain parameters will have to exist in reality for proving the existence of God. I think light with its very peculiar properties is sufficient for that purpose.

Where Science Has Gone Wrong So Far

I think there are at least three cases where science has gone wrong so far.

Lawrence Krauss' Faulty Logic

In the year 2010 scientist Lawrence M Krauss wrote an article in Wall Street Journal1 in which he had argued that as the total energy of our present universe is found to be zero, so from this it can be concluded that it must have originated from nothing. The gist of his argument is something like this: Let us suppose that the universe has actually originated from nothing at all. Then in that case the total energy of the universe would obviously be zero, because here everything has started from zero or nothing.

Can there be Two Types of Timelessness: One Mystical, Another Scientific?

Mystics who have claimed that they have direct experience of God have repeatedly and unanimously told us one thing: Time is unreal. If mystical experience gives the mystic the sensation that time is unreal and if one wants to establish that mystical experience is nothing but a mere hallucination, then he must have to show here that the mystics were wrong in holding that time is unreal. Here anyone who has minimum common sense will understand that the best possible way to do this is to show that time can never become unreal.

Internal Excellence, Mindful Reflections & That Which Becomes

Internal Excellence, Mindful Reflections & That Which Becomes

Enhancement of Internal Excellence & Its Measurement by Pradeep B. Deshpande


Subscribe to 11Prompt RSS