I have defined The Whole (TW) as that which contains within itself everything that is there. So by its very definition there cannot be anything at all outside of it, because I have already defined it as that which contains within itself everything that is there. So whatever will be there will be within The Whole only, and thus there will be no space, no time, no matter – simply nothing outside of The Whole. So The Whole will be neither in any space nor in any time, and thus it will be spaceless and timeless. Being spaceless and timeless it will also be changeless, immortal, all-pervading, one, unborn, uncreated, without any beginning, without an end, everlasting and non-composite. It is an old story retold here.
Now a very serious objection has been raised against this concept of The Whole by a famous American atheist who, as per Richard Dawkins, is one of the America's leading atheists. His objection is that as per our definition The Whole is neither in any space nor in any time, and therefore it is a self-referential body. Being a self-referential body nothing meaningful can be said about it. We cannot even address it by very simple words like 'it', 'that' etc. Anything meaningful about TW can be said only when this TW is within some context that is beyond or higher. This means that it cannot be that there will be only The Whole, but that there will also have to be something else along with The Whole. That means The Whole cannot be the sole existent, something else must always have to accompany it. This objection must have to be addressed properly before we can arrive at any conclusion regarding the existence of God.
Here I will have to say that science has given full support to our concept of The Whole. By showing that the total energy of the universe is zero science has also shown that our concept of The Whole is scientifically correct. Being neither in any space nor in any time The Whole is a self-referential body, and the objection is that there cannot be any meaningful dialogue about a self-referential body. But with the help of the two theories of relativity it can be shown that only a self-referential body can have zero energy. Einstein's general theory of relativity has very clearly shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any space and time without matter. Similarly there cannot be any matter without space and time. Again from Einstein's special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. So instead of saying that there cannot be any matter without space and time, we can also say that there cannot be any energy without space and time. Now we have already shown that The Whole is without space and time. But we have also shown that there cannot be any energy without space and time. So The Whole cannot have any energy. As soon as we will say that The Whole is within some context that is beyond or higher - say within some higher space and time - we will find that its total energy cannot be zero. This is because if we assume that the total energy of The Whole remains zero in this situation also, then which energy will justify the existence of this higher space and time? This is further because we have already seen that there cannot be any space and time without energy. So if the total energy of the universe is indeed zero, then The Whole can in no way be within any higher context, because here the total energy being zero there will be no energy at all that can justify the existence of this higher context. Thus the objection raised against our concept of The Whole is invalidated.
Logically also this objection can be invalidated. As soon as we will say that The Whole is within some context that is beyond or higher, we will find that it no longer remains The Whole, because we have already defined it as that which contains within itself everything that is there. So if there is anything at all outside of The Whole, it will no longer remain The Whole. That means for The Whole to be The Whole, it can never be within any higher context.
Recent comments