Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Scientific Logic for God's existence

  1. Apr 4, 2004 #1
    Dear Readers,

    I am Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist, author of Two Big Bangs created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space), a new hypothesis, which I wrote being inspired by Stephen Hawking's appeal given in his book "A Brief History of Time", reproduced below:

    "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question why it is that we and the Universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason---for then we would know the mind of God."

    I have been feeling since January 1990 that the theory of the single Big Bang as adopted by scientists is not proper. It is incomplete and gives only one side of the picture leaving the other side unexplained. Over and above, the explanation given by scientists for their unfinished theory also did not match with the requirement of the primeval and present laws of physics and that created a number of doubts in my mind.

    The Appeal made by Hawking in 1988 has been touching my heart continuously in search of the right answer 'Why it is that we and the Universe exist. I had also another reason to write this new hypothesis titled "Two Big Bangs Created the Universe" (Formed in Eternal Space) just because the scientists had lowered the image of 'The Creator' through their incomplete theory of big bang, lacking logical explanation. I was hurt as a man of logic and scientific laws, which I found missing from the big bang theory. They talked about one part ignoring the basic body, which is the principal part on the other.

    I decided to take up the new Theory of Parent Universe (TOPU) right from its root to fill the gap of the single big bang. In this theory, I tried to trace the pre-history of the creation of the Universe with the team of SAROUL (Scientific Advance Research of Universe and Life) and based my research work on 349 refererences, Nitin Raj, a young researcher, who is a member of SAROUL, presently in London, did the most remarkable job of the research work involved and made the new theory possible.

    In this theory, I have traced the pre-history from 1 trillion 250.000 billion years before the the occurrence of so-called big bang, assumed by scientists as the standard theory of today. I have openly challenged their theory and have tried to establish the existence of God with scientific explanation that it ever was there and would remain for ever with us , the whole Universe, all stars and planets, the most beautiful map, which The Creator himself drew and designed for us to see and enjoy. Please take one thing granted from me that the Universe is infinite and can never re-collapse, it is God's creation and not of any human builder.

    There was a serious discussion on 19 Mar 2004 in the President House, New Delhi on this theory held with His Excellency Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam, President of India, who himself is one of greatest scientists of the world, was pleased to suggest that the theory needs debate by the scientists. He was also pleased to compare and give his compliments that if Chandrasekhar, the Indian Astronomer, (who became the Noble Winner), could get honour as Chandrasekhar Limit, there could also be Raj Baldev limit. The copy of the book was presented to His Excellency by the author accompanied by members of his team SAROUL.

    Since this theory has been dealt from the very existence of The Creator in the most scientific form as desired by Hawking, I thought it shall be very appropriate if the scienfically part of The Creator and His existence, which I have given in my new hypothesis, should be put under a title of Scientific Logic for God's Existence for the general discussion of the readers. In this forum, I am only taking the subject of 'Scientific Logic for God's existence', and I hope all those who logically realize the existence of God within shall join me to glorify the name of Almighty, and if they do so, it shall be a real tribute to His Greatness with their individual devotion.

    At the outset I shall only say this much to start the debate:

    "Just to say there is God does'nt mean that the existence of God is confirmed, and just to say that there is no God doesn't mean that there exists no God at all".

    Both sides of the picture demand a solid proof whether God exists or not. I hereby take this duty upon me to place the scientific data in this forum in the non scientific way in my answers to enable the general readers to follow that the existence of God is scientific. In this regard, all the religions of the world deserve congratulations for the preaching and representations of their prophets, who have been guiding the people from time to time and have also been keeping them bound in the spiritual discipline of the nature in the larger interest of maintaining peace and harmony among the society and humanity. Had they not done, we could not dream of the present civilization.

    One thing is certain that Universe is created and other thing is also certain that Universe could not create itself. Shall it not be better if you and I may use the word 'The Creator' rather than God, because to deny the creating force may not be an easy task to repudiate by anyone, may be a common man, a scientist or a philosopher, or any one else from any class or profession.

    Since the forum does not permit lenghty body of the title, I shall wait for the readers and their questions and then I shall reveal to them what was the scientific and logical mystery of the 'The Creator's existence. I am at the service of all those who love Him.

    How scientifically The Creator created everything under the laws of physics and seed principle, I shall be pleased to reply each and everybody who wishes to know anything about God's scientific existence. Since the space does not permit me to cover the lengthy theory, I solicit your co-operation to enable me to serve you individually. However, all replies shall appear in this forum for the benefit of the general readers of this forum.

    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 4, 2004 #2

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Welcome, Dr. Baldev

    There is a tradition among some Westerners that a star in the east heralded the arrival of a deity in physical form, right here on the Earth. I see a parallel, in that for days I have been reading posts by new Forum members alerting us to the Coming of Dr. Baldev to this Forum.

    I posses no frankincense to lay at your feet, and I am not even sure what myrrh is, but a big howdy to you nonetheless. :smile:
     
  4. Apr 4, 2004 #3
    Hello Dr, Can you confirm the Existence of Blackholes within your theory?
     
  5. Apr 4, 2004 #4
    Dear ranyart,
    I am glad that you asked such a question on which my theory is based. I have given a chapter on black hole, in fact, the first black hole was central reservoir of the Parent Universe, but to understand it,you will have to read the book "Two Big Bangs created the Universe" (Formed in Eternal Space). The next book is New Concept of Black Holes, in which I have given 21 types of black holes, this book is likely to be published before July 2004, scripts are ready, only waiting for some reputed publishers.
    Whenever you wish I shall be able to provide you further details.
    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
  6. Apr 4, 2004 #5

    Forgive me Dr, but you are going to ask me to "cross your palm with $" ?

    I allready know the answer based on my understanding of the great:Subramanyan Chandrasekhar .

    There are other site's where one can sell ones wares, at any price.
     
  7. Apr 4, 2004 #6
    Dear Mr Janitor,
    I am impressed by your message, your frankness and sharp views. Readers are to exchange their views in a friendly manner, each person has to learn from the other in any debating subject. No one is perfect but a good debate improves thoughts and ideas at both ends, if views are respectfully different. A taunting way is normally not counted a healthy way in level of debate. If you have any point in your mind, may be against me, I shall be glad to hear from you with complete respect.

    Your last sentence "I posses no frankincense to lay at your feet, and I am not even sure what myrrh is, but a big howdy to you nonetheless" shows that these are your personal views for reasons best known to you even though these harsh views seem to have no link with the subject. Why you are annoyed on me, I don't know but I like genius people like you. Giving your views and opinion is your fundamental right, and I am pleased to read your message that you have at least given some weight to my title, people like you always help the forum in giving good colours of mind and thought. I do not wish to be right in thinking that you seem to be somewhat disappointed in some areas of your life. Anyhow best wishes and I thank you once again for taking trouble of sending me the e mail and message on the board. However, I have every reason to evaluate your views positively, irrespective of their nature and style, and treat you as a good colleague in the forum, who has been so kind to spare his precious time to reply, whatever.
    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
  8. Apr 4, 2004 #7
    Dear Ranyart,

    You have said:
    Forgive me Dr, but you are going to ask me to "cross your palm with $" ?
    If I have suggested you to read the book, it does'nt mean that I have demanded some money from you. Selling the book is publishers job and not of the author, hence your feeling that some money is involved or being sought for is not correct. The author gets the money from the publishers while signing the contract, so his interest of money lies no where.When the question of some information arises, naturally a suggestion would come to the respectable reader to study the book so as to do justice to the title of the forum. I may be excused for saying so that it is not necessary that everytime whatever you think is correct. Some times, there can be a slip in judgement, to err is human, as it looks to have happened in this case.
    Your other answer that you have the understanding of great Subramanyan is okay but with due apology this point has also no relation to ours. This forum is not chosen to get some financial benefit. I am really sorry, you have misunderstood. This is a debate and not a commercial institute as you feel. I could arrange to send you the book free if you liked, this title is not for making money, I would request you kindly to remove this misunderstanding from your mind.
    I am a man of 78 years only committed to social causes with national and international backgrouand, there is God's grace upon me on all sides, to talk of money and suggesting other forums, you have mistaken somewhere unintentionally, if I am right. Still I thank you for your prompt reply and I respect it with friendly gesture in a good spirit as a reader in the forum. I am always at your service for any genuine cause even in future but I expect a positive approach, which is the backbone of good debate. However, I am obliged that you spared some time for me.

    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
  9. Apr 4, 2004 #8
    Dr, my response was based upon my veiwing previous posts whereby some were 'proclaiming' your coming. Most people here can relate to situations similar to : The Simpson's episode where THE GREAT GABBO! was coming?

    I do not offer this as an excuse?..but I am very wary of advance "advertisments", especially with the coming of April Fool's day! (also covered by The Simpsons, and also had relevance to a big-bang! caused by Bart).

    To your theory, Two Big-Bangs, how does one define a Crunch as opposed to a Bang?

    Scientifically, there is no way of distinguishing a Crunch from a Bang?

    Do you state anywhere that there are also two Crunches in your theory?
     
  10. Apr 5, 2004 #9
    Dear Ranyart,
    I feel grateful for your prompt reply with so nice an approach, which is reasonable and friendly. It happens as you have explained. It is natural in the circumstances as explained by you.

    I am a serious person and completely dedicated to social causes and am also committed to give the best scientific research on different aspects and events of Cosmology to give my country proud of Indian scientists. If you visit www.interntionalreporter.com or visit google.com and search under Two Big Bangs or Dr Raj Baldev, you will find links to all articles on cosmology, every bit of finding that comes from NASA and other agencies receive my attention and I write my articles on MARS and new stars, galaxies which by God's grace have so far matched with my theory of Two Big Bangs.There is a separate website www.twobigbangs.com

    I have explained how two crunches had taken place ;and what made them to happen. Not only that I tried to explain how the atmosphere was formed, how the energy developed and how it behaved at the outset and now. The big bang as assumed by scientists could not justify with laws of physics. if you feel interested I can e mail to you any portion of the chapter of the book that you wish to read, or I shall reply to you on any query that you may have in your mind about the single big bang theory. I have definite fundamental differences which I have explained in my book. Once you happen to read
    the relevant portion, you may like to change your views.

    Anyhow, I am pleased to have a friend of your calibre on my friends' list.
    With profound regards,

    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  11. Apr 5, 2004 #10

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Were you able to predict how much methane would be in the atmosphere of Mars, and the mechanism by which it got there?
     
  12. Apr 5, 2004 #11
    Dear Janitor,
    I am pleased to receive your reply.I am obliged. I have not only written about MARS in my book but have given my future analysis about it. Even now I am giving a detailed article on MARS about the availability of water which shall appear on www.internationalreporter.net where my previous articles on MARS are also available. but disagreeing that there were once seas and oceans, only big reservoirs of water including large lakes. You are asking that aspect on which I have based my theory.
    One of its important features is Olympus Mons, a colossal volcano apparently dormant.This is the largest in size than any other mountain on the Earth. If the Earth loses its sparkle, Mars may replace it by having life on its surface but not before a billion years or so, just because its temperature cannot suit life and this change shall take about a billion years. The extra heat coming out of the Sun may unlock water frozen below it and its old rivers whose traces have been pictured, may suggest that it may have every possibility to flow again. I have given complete data about the MARS in my book under MARS Brief Data, from mean distance to its sidereal rotation period and now I am giving my views in the article that MARS and shall send the copy to you by e mail or draw your attention to it in two or three days wherein you will find all your doubts removed.
    Howeve, I feel I shall have to send the relevant chapter of the book to you or of the article so as to make your mind more clear.

    With regards,

    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  13. Apr 5, 2004 #12
    Ranyart,

    Your question was appropriate....and the response from a literary standpoint could have been answered directly.

    I am interested in the answer, so that I can gauge from where this theory developed from. As a student I have to be caution about such theories and have devoted a lot of time to these theories to see how they function.

    Is this not a appropriate position to learn from?
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  14. Apr 5, 2004 #13

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Dr. Baldev,

    You wrote, regarding me, "I thank you once again for taking trouble of sending me the e mail and message on the board."

    I feel I should clear up a potential misunderstanding. I have only communicated with you (so far) by posts on this particular page of the Physics Forum board. I have not sent any emails nor any private messages to you. Perhaps you are remembering an email that came from some other member of the Physics Forum? Or perhaps we merely have different definitions of the meaning of the word 'email'?

    Thank you for your offer of additional information. I hope that you will see fit to post on the Mars methane issue in a public way at this board, so that other members who no doubt are also interested in the issue will be able to read your thoughts on the matter. It seems a bit of a waste to only send the information privately to me alone.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  15. Apr 6, 2004 #14
    Dear Janitor,
    My all e mails are attended to by my secretary whom I dictate. On enquiry, she has now told me that there was an e mail from the physics forum reproducing the contents that you had posted, so it was presusmed you had sent the e mail.
    I am happy to find a fine thread of understanding in you as if you are related to the depth of some musical instrument. The people having interest in music are generally very genius and possess the 6th sense and extra sensory preceptions. I am glad to find the same in you.
    I shall do give the information on MARS and the methane in public as suggested by you.
    Sincere thanks and regards,

    Dr Raj Baldev
     
  16. Apr 6, 2004 #15

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thank you for your response. Somebody may have sent an email to you with a quote of what I posted on this discussion page I suppose, but if so I am not aware of who has done that or why they did it.

    As for music and genius, I am afraid I am limited mostly to just listening to music, rather than composing or performing music! I think the true geniuses are the ones who can write songs and perform them with their musical instruments.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2004
  17. Apr 6, 2004 #16
    My dear Janitor,
    If you excuse me, I would say that the people who listen to the music first follow the depth, tune and melody of the composer or the singer, and then appreciate on its merit. The music merges with the thoughtless state of the listener, it is my view because it is the good listener who can assess the grade of the music, hence the geniusness of the good listener is as equally important as that of the composer or the singer. Listener is the approving person, hence his geniusness is a little farther above. With regards,
    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
  18. Apr 6, 2004 #17

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Dr. Baldev,

    Thank you for the warm thoughts. As it happens, I am currently listening to a music disc that I purchased today, by an American singer named Joni Mitchell.

    It occurs to me that your secretary may have merely meant that the software of the Physics Forum website automatically sent an email to tell you that there was a response to your post. Nothing mysterious about that, after all.
     
  19. Apr 21, 2004 #18
    Dr. B

    Does your theory solve the metaphysical questions relating to our existence or does it just push the beginning back to an earlier time?
     
  20. Apr 27, 2004 #19
    Dear Canute,

    The Theory of Two Big Bangs or Theory of Parent Universe deals with the matter right from the inception when there was neither atmosphere nor universe. After explaining how the atmosphere was created, how the gases were formed and how they were condensed at the Central Reservoir and how the reservoir exploded and created the universe through the supernova balls, and in the end how our Solar System was formed and our Earth took the shape and became ready for life.

    This theory explains how the Primeval Particle or Primeval Spirit or 'The Creator' became active at the center of Space scientifically and expanded in the eternal space and created uncounted universes, and thereafter inculcated life and energy throughout the eternal space with His genius intelligence. The explanation is complicated. However, I can say this much that I have also tried to solve the existence of life metaphysically separately in one of my forthcoming books titled 'Ape or Man who descended first?'.

    Dr. Raj Baldev
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2004
  21. May 21, 2004 #20
    Dr. Baldev,

    I'm curious what peer reviewed articles you have published?

    I also noticed that you are the chairman of Media International Limited's "International Reporter" and you are also listed as the registrant for www.internationalreporter.com and internationalreporter.org .

    I'm curious if this had anything to do with them publishing your articles and the the glowing comments on your book?

    Please advise...

    Ken
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Scientific Logic for God's existence
  1. A Logical proof of no god (Replies: 259)

  2. Nine is God (Replies: 2)

  3. God? Schmod! (Replies: 8)

  4. The God Equation (Replies: 5)

  5. The God Particle (Replies: 2)

Loading...