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. But here science has done just the opposite; it has actually shown as to how and when time can become unreal. Instead of myself saying anything about how time actually becomes unreal, I want to let one scientist speak for me here. Dr. Sacha Vongehr ia a physicist and philosopher and he writes regularly in the science blog Science 2.0. In an article ‘The Fundamental Nature of Light’1 published in that blog on February 3rd, 2011 he has written that as per relativity ‘light has no time to see’. What he meant to say here was that for light ‘time would stop and the travel time between any two points, even between here and the edge of the observable universe, would be exactly zero’.

So we very clearly see here that science has definitely shown as to how time can become unreal, because it has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. But we have already said that in order to show that mystical experience is a hallucination, one must have to show that mystics’ view regarding time was totally mistaken. But science has miserably failed to do that, because instead of showing that time can in no way become unreal it has actually shown as to how it can become unreal, thus providing ample support to mystical view about time. As science has in no way contradicted mystical view here, 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? We can also ask the following question here: Is this the right way to show that God does not exist?

If I say that time is unreal and if you want to prove me wrong and if I do possess some minimum common sense also, then I will definitely not expect from you that you would support my contention by showing to me as to how time can become unreal. Thus it appears from above that probably some scientists lack this minimum common sense who claim that mystical experience is nothing but a hallucination.

In the year 2001 I had debated with an atheist regarding the existence of a spaceless and timeless God. In one of the e-mails he wrote to me: ‘What is “timeless”? We don’t know of anything “timeless”.’

But afterwards he was compelled to admit the following: ‘Some mystics might have said God is timeless, but I’m sure they didn’t have in mind the “timelessness” we see when we look at Einstein’s equations.’

In the latter case although he was admitting that science had dealt with timelessness, yet he was making some distinction here: Mystics’ timelessness is not the same as scientists’ timelessness.

Let the readers judge themselves as to whether there can be two types of timelessness: One mystical, another scientific.