WHAT EXISTS BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF UNIVERSE?

[sridatta]

WHAT EXISTS BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF UNIVERSE?

Today, the logical analysis is not only sharp but also steady due to experimental verification of every concept. The receiving nature of the people is quite stable due to the scientific analysis. People are not fast in applying the theoretical tautology to arrive at hasty conclusions.

In view of the stability of the phase of intelligence, the projection of the real unimaginable nature of God will not face the danger of non-existence. The scientist may not believe any miracle and may say that nothing is unimaginable. But the scientist must accept the unimaginable boundary of the universe.
The scientist may argue like this:- “When the universe is imaginable made of imaginable cosmic energy as the fundamental cause, how can you say that the boundary of the universe is unimaginable? Just like the ocean is water, the boundary of the ocean must be also be the same water. Hence, the boundary of the imaginable universe must be also imaginable”.

This type of argument is not acceptable if you analyze the subtle point of the boundary. When you reach the edge of the ocean and stand on it, you must find water on one side and the land, which is not water on the other side. The knowledge of both water and land is necessary to fix the boundary of the ocean. Land is not water.

If land is also water, then the boundary of the ocean is not achieved. Similarly, when you reach the boundary of the imaginable universe, you must perceive the imaginable nature of the universe on one side and the unimaginable nature on the other side. If the unimaginable nature is also imaginable, then the boundary of imaginable nature is not achieved.

When the unimaginable nature cannot be imagined by your intelligence, it means you have never reached the boundary of the imaginable universe. Unless you perceive both imaginable and unimaginable natures, the boundary of the imaginable nature is not achieved. Hence the boundary of the universe is always unimaginable from the other side. Some scientists say that the diameter of the universe is 200 billion light years.

Another scientist laughed at this by asking that if he travels all this diameter and reach the compound wall of universe, what is present beyond such compound wall? One scientist says that the universe is constantly expanding! This is again a laughable concept since it finally means that you can never achieve the boundary of the universe.

Hence, by all means the scientist has to accept the existence of the unimaginable entity, which is the other side of the boundary of the universe. It is not the boundary if the other side is not achieved. The scientist has stable and steady intelligence to realize the truth in this argument unlike a theoretical ancient tautologist. The unimaginable item, which is beyond the boundary of this imaginable universe is called as God.
When this universe is projected from God, you will touch God on reaching the edge of the universe. You can never touch God since He is unimaginable. It means that you can never reach the boundary of this universe.
Today this fundamental concept is revealed due to confidence on the stable and steady analytical faculty of real scientists. Ofcourse, foolish conservative scientists also exist even today in small number and this is inevitable at any time. Moreover, today there is lot of demand for the revelation of this basic concept in view of the violent terrorism that arose from the differences between the religions.

Even the scientific theory like constant expansion of universe tells us that the space is not inherently infinite, but, becomes relatively infinite as your mind travels through it to touch its boundary.

This means that the space is not really infinite by itself, but, relatively infinite and expands continuously before your mind reaches its boundary. The conclusion is that the boundary of the space can never be touched by your mind since the space continuously expands before your mind reaches the boundary.

The constant expansion of space indicates the main point that boundary of space, which is the unimaginable God, can never be reached by your mind (Apraapya Manasaa saha– Veda, Naantosti – Gita). This is the absolute point and the relative point is that the space is constantly expanding ahead [of] your mind. You must establish the spiritual knowledge on this basic foundation, which is that the absolute God is unimaginable. All the other concepts should be built like castles on this strong foundation.

Take the case of a stream of smoke coming from the fire. If you travel in the smoke, after some time, you can touch the fire. The stream of the smoke is finite because on reaching the boundary of the smoke, you can touch the imaginable fire.

On contrary, you cannot reach the boundary of smoke (space) if the fire (God) is unimaginable. Hence, the finite or infinity of the space depends on the imaginable or unimaginable nature of God respectively. The infinity of space is not its characteristic, but, is due to the unimaginable nature of its generator, the God.

The constant expansion of the universe also speaks the same. As you travel along the universe, it expands so that you cannot reach its boundary and touch the unimaginable God. By this, the constant expansion is again relatively justified i.e., with respect to the unimaginable God.

The constant expansion is not the absolute phenomenon of the universe, but, it is a relative phenomenon since the aim of the expansion is only to see that you should not touch the boundary of universe or God.

The space cannot exist in God since the product(space) cannot exist in its cause(God) before its generation. If the space exists in God even before its generation, it means the generation of space becomes meaningless. Anything is said to be generated, if it is absent before its generation. This means that the space and hence, the spatial dimensions do not exist in God and hence can never be imagined. The unimaginable nature is, thus, justified.

The unimaginable God proves Himself by performing unimaginable events called miracles. You cannot discard a genuine miracle as magic. Even if you discard miracles, the infinite space with unimaginable boundary stands as the solid proof for the concept of existence of unimaginable nature indicating the existence of unimaginable God.

The bending of space along the boundary of object proves that space is something (subtle energy) and not nothing. Hence, generation of space becomes a logical concept since something can be only generated and nothing cannot be generated.

[brunumb]

God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space since God is the cause and space is the first effect.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Start again.

Have you ever stopped and reflected on some of the things you write? Look at your sentence:

Assumes facts not in evidence. Start again.

This typifies the fallacious and sloppy "logic" used by those who embrace scientism, it is self deluding language it even sometimes fools intelligent people who have let their guard down.

I mean are you stating that an assumption is somehow illegitimate unless there's evidence for it? If so you are quite simply wrong, any proposition justified by evidence is not an assumption, it is an inference. Assumptions do not require evidence, all we care about is that said assumption does not lead to some kind of logical contradiction or (if we're discussing science) does not lead to a prediction that differs from observation.

You cannot claim to understand science or the scientific method when you do not recognize these kind of basic errors of reasoning.

So, think about what I say and start again.

If you disagree with what I said please tell us why you think the following represents facts and what is the evidence in support of that:
"God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space since God is the cause and space is the first effect".

[Inquirer]

God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space since God is the cause and space is the first effect.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Start again.

Have you ever stopped and reflected on some of the things you write? Look at your sentence:

Assumes facts not in evidence. Start again.

This typifies the fallacious and sloppy "logic" used by those who embrace scientism, it is self deluding language it even sometimes fools intelligent people who have let their guard down.

I mean are you stating that an assumption is somehow illegitimate unless there's evidence for it? If so you are quite simply wrong, any proposition justified by evidence is not an assumption, it is an inference. Assumptions do not require evidence, all we care about is that said assumption does not lead to some kind of logical contradiction or (if we're discussing science) does not lead to a prediction that differs from observation.

You cannot claim to understand science or the scientific method when you do not recognize these kind of basic errors of reasoning.

So, think about what I say and start again.

If you disagree with what I said please tell us why you think the following represents facts and what is the evidence in support of that:
"God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space since God is the cause and space is the first effect".

I do not know what it "represents" or whether it can be described as a "fact" it is clearly a belief held by he who wrote it. If you want to know what it represents or why he believes it to be a fact just ask him, but the fact remains one does not need evidence to justify an assumption, one can assume literally anything and see where it leads, if it leads to a contradiction then we must reexamine everything, the assumed thing might even be right and some prior held belief is in fact wrong.

[sridatta]

[/quote]

If you disagree with what I said please tell us why you think the following represents facts and what is the evidence in support of that:
"God is the generator of Space and Space is His first creation (Atmana akaashah…). God is just above the space since God is the cause and space is the first effect".
[/quote][/quote]

Let us consider the example of inferring the existence of the unseen fire on the mountain upon seeing smoke. Observe the following five statements:

1. There must be fire on this mountain (Agnimānayaṃ parvataḥ). This statement is the final inference, which depends on the following statements.

2. The reason is that I can see smoke rising from the mountain (Dhūmatvāt). This is the observation of smoke, which is the effect.

3. Wherever one sees smoke, there must be fire. This statement is a generalization (Yatra yatra dhumaḥ tatra tatra vahniḥ iti vyāptiḥ).

4. I have observed the link between smoke and fire in the kitchen (Yathā mahānase). The above generalization is based on this observation. Here, both the cause (fire) and the effect (smoke) are observed together.

5. Fog looks like smoke but is not caused by fire. This is a case where the generalization given by Statement 3 fails (Bāṣpāmbudhūme avyāptiḥ).

This example of inferring the existence of fire upon observing smoke is being compared to inferring God upon observing a miracle. In an inference, the unseen cause is inferred upon observing the effect (Liṅga parāmarśo anumānam). Here, it is important to note that, as per the fourth statement, it was possible to perceive fire, which is the cause. But in the case of God, it is impossible to perceive Him. When we perceive a miracle, which is an unimaginable event, we infer the existence of its unimaginable Cause (God). Here too, only the existence of the unimaginable Cause is known and not the nature of the Cause.

If you say that the knowledge of the existence of the unimaginable nature itself is the knowledge of the nature of the unimaginable Cause, it is meaningless. Nothing of the nature of that Cause is even imagined by you since it is unimaginable. The existence of the cause of an unimaginable action can be inferred. But the nature of that Cause must also be unimaginable. An imaginable event is caused by an imaginable cause whereas an unimaginable event must be caused by an unimaginable Cause alone. Thus, analyzing the inference-authority from various angles, we conclude that only the existence of the unimaginable God can be known and not His nature.

[Diagoras]

I can’t imagine God’s ever been in a kitchen, if that’s any help?