Stephen Hawking says there is no afterlife


A news splashed across the headlines a few days ago: Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story’.

To most people this may appear as a final statement from ‘Science’ refuting the ‘Religion’. After all Stephen Hawking is supposed to be the most scientific person living on earth today. The hype around him is as if he is the Einstein or Newton of today! (Ironically Einstein and Newton were anything but atheists.)

But what was more baffling to my humble mind than the question of afterlife was what made this news so prominently covered! I came with several hypotheses and am not sure which one is true: That people in media have valid subliminal reasons to find every reason to refute any entity that accounts for their deeds! Or perhaps any masala news that can be hyped up to bring readership is all they stand for! Or perhaps an eternally confused population serves their business interests best! I leave it upon readers to research on this puzzle while I pen my thoughts on the said news on afterlife.

1. The news is no different than another news that came around same time – “Shahrukh Khan has started loving puppies”. Every person in a civilized world is entitled to have his or her free opinions and voice them. So there is nothing objectionable about Shahrukh loving puppies or Hawking asserting that he does not believe in afterlife or Hawking suddenly leaving his wife who cared for him for decades and children at age of 53 to marry his nurse simply because he felt an emotional pull. The only problem is that there is nothing scientific or conclusively justifiable about these. They remain personal preferences, and they should be allowed to remain so.

It is just that a group of non-technical journalists – who rule the media business – tend to be the final filter for the world to tell them what science is or what religion is or what business is. And layman is covertly duped to follow what they say…very subtly. Welcome to the era of surrogate and not-so-surrogate mass-brainwashing!

Coming straight to point – Shahrukh Khan made no breakthrough research on why puppies should be loved henceforth. Nor did Stephen Hawking formulate any plausible theory that conclusively refutes the existence of God or afterlife. All he has done is to post his personal views based upon his experiences and experiments that failed to discover such a theory, combined with perhaps a natural repulsion to the concept of accountability of all actions, thoughts and words derived from the very same experiences and experiments in life.

2. Stephen Hawking is undoubtedly a very sharp mind and a marvelous physicist cum mathematician. His struggle against motor neuron disease is a source of inspiration for all of us. It demonstrates clearly the triumph of will as mentioned in Vedas.

Nonetheless Stephen Hawking remains the most over-hyped scientist of our era. Who shot to fame because in his struggle with disabilities coupled with brilliance lay a fantastic story that could be sold in public. Bantam Books marketed his ‘Brief History of Time’ as creation of an Einstein incarnate. The book was a bestseller though hardly anyone could understand it. And many a claims made in book had to be debunked in the next decade by many including Hawking himself. But the hype continued. This is the nature of hype – it needs a perceivable basis to begin with and then it continues on its own even when the basis no more exists- like a rocket.

Among layman Hawking continues to be the most sale-able story on science being equated with Einstein legends. However among physicists its a different story. In a survey conducted few years ago in Physics World, the reputed journal on physics, top physicists of the world were asked to vote for the greatest practitioner of their profession. Einstein topped with 119 votes followed by Newton with 46 votes. Stephen Hawking shared the last position with many others with 1 vote each.

This is not to belittle the brilliance of Hawking. He is among the best in the profession. He is a wonderful personality. But the point is that this does not make him the final word in matters of life, afterlife, or even physics for that matter.

3. The greatest irony in the superfluous denial of afterlife by Stephen Hawking based on his personal preferences (and no science or maths whatsoever!) is that his very existence today is based on the fact that majority of the world believes – actively or passively – in afterlife and even the legal systems, social structures, education system, governments are all derived from the belief that death is not end of the life. Because most people are hooked naturally to believe that future is never eternal darkness and there is more to look up to, and that all actions are accounted for, we don’t have a majority of rapists, cannibals on our planet.

Just assume for a while that the entire world indeed starts believing that there is no afterlife and maximization of fun in the next few seconds, minutes, hours, months, years is all that life is all about. Now what is the incentive for me to not kill a person if I can have his wealth or taste his salty flesh? Why should I not indulge in loot, plunder, rape, incest, murder, cheating, fraud if these titillate my sensory organs and  I can ensure that I am smart and strong enough to evade being caught. Why should I not take and give bribes and do big scams? Why should I not commit fraud and suppress the suppressed? And why should not I eat up Stephen Hawking raw instead of countering his flawed logic? After all even Stephen Hawking asserted in same news story that “We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.”

So Mr Hawking is countering the very foundation that has ensured that he lives in the world safely and securely despite his profound physical disabilities and irritation he is bringing to many through his views! The snake is eating its own tail!

4. So we see that concept of an after-life is essential to maintain order, ethics, values and morals in the world. It ensures that bulk of the people naturally incline towards helping the old and caring for the babies instead of conspiring to eat them up. They would not steal from a shop even when no one is watching! They would not see every woman in the family through eyes of lust and value the relationships of sister, mother and daughter. And when they default on any of these ideals due to habits or instincts, they would find ways to compensate for these through other benevolent deeds.

The world is worth-living because thankfully the majority does not emulate Stephen Hawking. (Even USA – supposed to be hub of all scientific research – proudly asserts in its currency notes – “In God We Trust”). And the world is disgusting to live to the extent each of us has a doubt or misconception about after-life.

But this is not the only reason to believe in God and after-life. These concepts are not mere convenience mechanisms to ensure that humans do not turn cannibals. There is more to it.

5. The popular theory of Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkings of the world is that the earth, the life, the intelligence and the progress of civilization are all mere random events with extremely low probability. It all started with a big-bang sometime billion years ago. Then matter-energy transformations led to creation of a wide variety of things in the universe, then somewhere a sun got formed and a burning hot earth started revolving around it. As it cooled, some more chemical reactions happened. Then some complex proteins got formed. Then reactions took to such stable state that they could replicate themselves and join together absorbing wide varieties of forms. Thus multi-cellular organisms got formed. Now somehow the reactions created what is called DNA. And now things became even easier. Gradually a wide variety of species (aka chemical reactions) happened to exist. Many of them started having a brain. And one species which could use its thumb started having better development of brain. Over years, this became a modern human. Then his brain started having some chemical reactions that would force him to seek meaning and purpose of life. They would force him to be social, creative, spiritual, academic etc. So human civilization started. Other animals could not have such brain reactions because their thumb was not good. Now few centuries ago one deviant individual from this human chemical reaction put other chemicals together and made a printing press. Now suddenly information era began. Any human could become knowledgeable without necessarily having intelligence! This led to rapid transformations and then one more deviant used this printed knowledge and his intelligence to make the computer. Now chemicals..sorry humans…could do simulations to predict whatever they wanted. Few years later, one more deviant made internet. In between someone started companies that work only for profits, some else started advertisement to brainwash and help companies, news channels were opened, fashion started and what not. This all led to current complexities of life. This, in short is story of human life today that exists nowhere except on earth in whatever universe we have explored so far!

But to simplify even further, we are what we are and where we are through an extremely rare chance of probability that makes us so very very special and unique in middle of billions of km of playground (universe) that we can observe all around us. From a mathematical point of view, the probability of having organic life is next to zero. To have anything more than unicellular simple amoebas is billions time lesser. To have complex organisms like insects, reptiles, birds, mammals is still lesser by more than billion billion times. To have bisexual organisms that mature separately and yet are designed to be complementary and are necessary to come together to breed next generation is even rare. And then to have something like a human who could think and also have a special thumb is still rarer. But even rarer is the fact that only humans are the species to have developed such faculties that even force him to think of who he is, where he came from, where will he go. No elephant, tiger, lion, owl etc could obtain such faculties. Unlike Lord of the Rings where we have elves, hobbits and dwarfs, we have only humans possessing intelligence! The probability of all this happening is just a notch more than zero. A notch because we know it happened! And yet it is a random chance of luck!

Now let us consider another case. Suppose I gave you a coin to toss that I claim to be totally unbiased. You toss it hundred times and each time it comes as head. What would be your conclusion?

A. The coin is biased

B. The method of tossing is erroneous

I would refute. I would say, don’t be stupid. There is a probability of (0.5)^100 that it can come head in all tosses.I would say that you are so special and lucky to have been a witness to such rare probability. Perhaps if you are a simpleton, I would be able to convince you with flowery examples, great dialogues, sophism, display of mastery of probability and science and showing my credentials of being an eminent researcher as per some agency that is very popular in media.

So you perform another try. You toss the coin again 900 times. And after 1000 trials in total, you still get all heads. I would say – You are still luckier to have witnessed this phenomenon for first time in history of human civilization that has a probability of (0.5)^1000. In all probability, by now you would termed me a fraud and if the experiment had some pecuniary implications, you would be contemplating putting me in jail!

But since most people are very simple, I take this even further. I announce this as a great rare scientific phenomenon. I write some books wherein I explain what probability is, and then give examples of rare events happening, all to justify why there is no bias in coin and coming of heads even after 100,000 trials is still a random phenomenon. A publisher would hail me as greatest brain on earth ever, several others would justify that on basis of track record of good cricket matches that I played in my career and hence the hype is built. Then one group starts opposing me and this only increases the hype about me and keenness to await my next scientific miracle – like the octopus who predicted FIFA winners!

To add spice to the fantastic story, I now add a dice which always rolls to a 6 even after 100,000 trials. I then add a pack of cards from which a randomly chosen card is always King of Spade after an equal number of trials.

The conditions are that one can never test the coin, dice or the pack of cards and can never allege bias. Because assumption of bias is beyond the scope of rules of the game. No one ever saw anyone add bias to them and hence this is out of purview.

Now if you are beginning to believe that I have started going out of mind then let me tell you something. The probability of intelligent life thriving on planet earth with all the symbiosis and complexities that exist in every cell of the body, every natural cycle, every physiological function of the body, every social system etc etc etc is still far far lower than a coin giving head in all 100,000 trials AND a dice always rolling 6 after 100,000 rolls AND a King of Spade being chosen in each of 100,000 picks from a pack of cards!

So if I am a jerk because I claim that the coin that always tosses head, and the dice that always rolls 6 and the cards that always select King of Spade are unbiased, then those who claim that the entire process that led to intelligent life thinking about its own origin is a mere random event are even greater jerks!

And since the concept of ‘no after-life’ is merely an extrapolation of this jerky theory, it is equally crazy!

Please note that I am not asserting that evolution never happened or big bang never happened. I am also not asserting that the universe was created in 6 days or merely by some God saying: “Let there be light!”. In fact given available observations of laws of universe, that seems highly unlikely. However whether evolution happened or creation in few hours or a mix of two is all immaterial. What is material, based on available evidence, is that it is significantly more (at least billions of times) more probable that the entire creation process has been a planned process with a purpose rather than a mere random chance event! And that is exactly why barring a few neo-scientists, bulk of geniuses in the scientific fraternity never denied the existence of God or a Supreme Planner.

6. Let us understand what is the difference between a planned event and a random event. In reality, there is no way to assert whether an event is planned or random. When 1000 people suddenly start running on streets wearing same T Shirt and Pant, at 7 am on Sunday, we assume that this is a planned running event. This is because the probability of 1000 people having an inspiration to seek health through morning run after wearing the same T Shirt is highly unlikely. In other words, when an event happens whose probability is very low, we say it is a planned event. Lesser the probability, more the planning behind. This is the only way to deduce whether an event is planned or random, especially when you do not have sufficient options to conduct trials or show sufficiently large sample size of similar events happening.

Take for example, creation of the world. No scientist in the world can show even one single evidence of something automatically being created without someone applying planning skills to create it. Even a wiper of the car has to be manufactured with thorough planning. Under such situations, if intelligent life on earth is not a planned event, then the latest IPL or Cricket World Cup was also a purely random event. People just walked in to stadiums – as spectators, security guards, players, umpires, commentators, administrators, cheer leaders blah blah – randomly. We just chanced to witness the random phenomenon.

The ramblings of Stephen Hawking since ‘Brief History of Time’ to denial of after-life is also a purely random event, pre-decided by the way big-bang happened some billion years ago.

Yes, if intelligent life is random, so is everything else including the assertion that life is random. Even the inspiration behind voicing this assertion is a purely random chemical process!

7. So after discovering that those who deny afterlife are those who would agree that even Olympics was a random event, let us now explore further loopholes of the theory. The assumption that death means destruction of a computer assumes that consciousness is a processor in this computer. Hawking says that there is no use of broken down computers in Heaven and hence afterlife does not exist. Sounds poetic. But that’s all about it.

Scientists have been unable to discover the seat of consciousness in body. Dead has never been revived like in Horror Movies. Nor could anyone pinpoint the location of consciousness. Forget about consciousness, scientists fail to understand how the brain works except that some electric signals travel all around. Even the motor-neuron disease of Hawking is a mystery. Scientists are baffled over how termite colonies work with such great team work when each terimite has minimal intelligence. And how the brain containing innumerable neurons work together to maintain voluntary and involuntary mechanisms of the body including intelligence. The source has been far from located. And hence to deduce that death leads to ‘eternal darkness’ is as ridiculous as asserting that the computer is destroyed when one breaks the monitor.

Hawking says that “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” The point however is that there is no conclusive evidence to believe that brain alone is life and brain failing implies ALL components failing. All we know is that brain is like a hard disk and body is like mouse+keyboard+monitor etc. Without these in place, processor cannot show its power. But only a fool shall throw away the latest Intel processor costing a couple of thousand dollars because his cheap Chinese hard disk crashed or the Made in Taiwan monitor failed!

Seat of consciousness or intelligence is like a processor of computer. Until you plug your Intel i7 in the motherboard and set up the accessories, it looks like a piece of trash. The moment you plugin, you realize that this i7 can accomplish much more than what your hand made abacus can.

Given that there so much of order in otherwise random world, and that events that should have zero probability are happening in ample all around us, the sensible mind deduces that there is a planning and purpose behind it all. Further there is no reason to conclude that seat of consciousness is permanently destroyed with death of the body, when the skeptics don’t even know the seat of consciousness. Hence a wise man concludes that the force of life and hope for future cannot suddenly face a discontinuous abrupt breakdown. And the processor of consciousness would find more opportunities to plugin into a different set of accessories to continue the journey ahead.

8. Scientists cannot also explain what causes origin of consciousness. And further, what makes my consciousness different from your consciousness. How so much close I am to anything physically, my consciousness is unique to myself. Yes, we can admit that some big bang happened, and some atomic reactions happened, and then some chemical reactions happened blah blah and suddenly we have so many humans and animals and birds and insects around us. We also admit that the process led to creation of intelligent machines. But from where did so many observers emerge who are witnessing all these phenomena and thinking about it? In a purely physical model of world, there is every justification of planets being created and even biological systems being created there. But there is no explanation of creation of unique consciousness and observers and action-takers. I understand that my body started as a fertilized egg in womb of my mother and then further reactions led me to having a brain and nervous system and various organs. But from where did this feeling of I came? If I am merely some cell or group of cells, then first provide me my location and then conclude that I can be destroyed.

And also explain me why this group of cells have feeling of I. And how can you conclude that I am as gross as a cell or an atom and not anything subtler? Since I first had sense of consciousness, my body has changed drastically. Established phenomena of observed science assert that virtually each atom of my body may have been exchanged with world or shifted locations. But I remain the same. That means there is something constant beyond all these cells and atoms that does not change. And when it is beyond all these atoms and particles, it is beyond being captured by crude instruments of scientific laboratories, and yet is the most established fact of life, how can someone claim ‘scientifically’ that I shall be destroyed when the body dies? What happens so specially in death that would force this source to die? Thus, to assert that I shall die when this physical body is destroyed is more ridiculous than asserting that Dak Bungalow of Jhumritalaiya in Bihar has ghosts living because some voices are heard from there on New Moon nights!

Let the scientists first pinpoint the seat of consciousness, explain its properties and then conclude whether it dies or continues to live. To deny it in this premature state of sketchy knowledge obtained through crude instruments and slightly less crude mathematical formulations would only be superstitions.

9. If it all be a blinded reaction, even we are chemical reactions. So killing, rape, fraud etc are also nothing more than exchange of some acids and alkalis in a chemistry lab. And whatever a Hawking or Dawkins is thinking or representing is nothing but an evolved chemical reaction. I can claim that actually apart from me there is no other observer. A Hawking or a Dawkins is merely a virus infected robot having no consciousness. And thus there is no reason why a mechanical/chemical object should be taken seriously.

The very fact that we debate proves that we value consciousness as something beyond blind reaction. Or else, all arguments, all logic, all counter logic, all facts, all evidences eventually turn meaningless. Because there is no way for me to ascertain whether you are a robot or actually a conscious observer. Then there is no way to ascertain that you indeed can process information in same manner as I can. Further, after some time the robot called you shall cease to exist and I shall cease to exist. And similarly all science, all discovery, all knowledge, all inventions, all ideologies would all come to blankness. So even the notion of right or wrong makes no sense in a world without observers who are separate from rest of the chemicals. In other words, unless there is an experimenter in a chemical lab, mixing of acid, alkali and salts would only be random catastrophe. And to say that Sulphuric Acid mixed Nitric Acid with Sodium Nirate would only be bedtime stories for children. Much more fairy tales than afterlife! But wait… even children and fairy tales are no different from acids and salts in the lab!

In short, the very notion of true, false, logic, flaw etc become totally meaningless if everything is a temporary chemical reaction eventually.

10. In a way Hawking is not wrong. He hails from a Christian society and hence the concept of God as in Semitic cults is deeply entrenched in him. Considering his current age, situation and lack of knowledge of the concept of God in philosophically more refined concept of God and Universe, it is perhaps too late for him to assimilate these concepts.

The Biblical concept of God is not wrong. Its perfect and flawless for a certain level of intellect. For example, if one has to explain to a child who created the world, it is perhaps simpler to simply state that God made it. And then when the child asks where is God, it is more relieving to say that He is on top of sky than explain why he cannot see Him. And when the child asks pointing to sky, where is God in sky, it is simplest to answer that He is above the 4th or 7th sky and hence we cannot see Him. When someone asks what happens after death, easiest answer to incentivize him to good actions is that there is a Paradise in some location and God will send us there if we do good deeds.

This is the concept of God and afterlife as deeply entrenched in the western psyches.

However as one progresses in spiritual intelligence, more explaining models of God and afterlife are needed that explain the realities of this life also better. Vedas – the oldest texts of humankind – contain plethora of explanations on such a model that is much more subtle than the Semitic view and more explaining that the Hawking/Dawkins model of blinded alley. It is also the most motivating and inspiring model. It also embeds the scope for further refinement with evolution of intellect and forms the mother of all other grosser models of world.

Here are the salient points:

- To claim that world got created without a creator is foolish as discussed above. In fact, it seems to be the most improbable theory by admission of their own proponents. If foolishness be a function of belief in most improbable, then Mr Hawking and Mr Dawkins can themselves conclude who are the greatest fools in this specific issue.

However to consider that the creator is a personal God is equally foolish. The creator is sum-total of what atheists would like to call Laws of Nature. In fact He is the source behind all these eternal Laws. As Newton once pointed out, we only measure the accuracy with which the God manages the laws through our mathematical equations and not the cause of law. For example, we can accurately measure how 2 particles, howsomuch far from each other, attract each other. But what makes this force of gravity of electricity work is beyond us. We create models to define terms like waves, energy, fields, radiations only to explain the phenomena using metaphors. But cause is unknown. Vedic God is the cause. He operates as per these eternal laws – a few of which can be modeled as per crude frameworks of mathematics – continuously and without change.

Thus He is completely impersonal, does not grant favors, does not punish, does not forgive and does not meddle with personal lives. Einstein came very close to defining such a God but was plagues by lack of resources beyond maths and physics that are necessary to explain it further.

This God is same always – in past, present and future. And the laws are such that they are intended for benefit of the seats of consciousness – the souls. The laws are such that depending on whether we enhance our wisdom or reduce it through thoughts, words and actions, we face situations that result in our happiness and sorrow. And happiness and sorrow are modeled in such a manner that they take us away from ignorance and towards wisdom.

- The seats of consciousness – the souls – are eternal like God. Since the seat is subtler than all physical entities, there is nothing in world that can destroy it. Because to destroy, you need something that is comparable to the object in subtlety . If something is more subtle than the inter-atomic space, what could cause its destruction? Its effects are manifest but scientists are unable to measure it because crude laboratory tools are too gross to measure it. The only way to gauge it is through mind because mind is subtlest of physical entities under our control. Most scientists are inept in handling such a subtle tool and hence fail to gauge it.

Note that eventually everything is gauged through mind. Whatever instruments we use to see, calculate or observe any physical or not-so-physical entity is filtered through sense-organs and finally processed by mind. We need all this installation of crude gadgets for same reason why very heavy installations are required to immune very sensitive instruments in labs from minutest of fluctuations. To be able to pull a thread through a needle-hole while riding a bus on bumpy roads of village is not everyone’s task. Only an expert can control his muscles to resist all fluctuations and achieve the feat. Similarly, to gauge the self through mind demands complete mastery over muscles of mind that is not for everybody in mundane life where we are addicted to some sensory input or fantasies to titillate us every moment.

However, circumstantial evidences to conclude existence of a Self beyond physical body are sufficiently more plausible than denial of the Self.

- God is not sitting over some 4th or 7th sky. He is everywhere. Another metaphor could be that we are within God. There is no space that is missed by God’s presence. We cannot measure or gauge Him directly because our instruments are crude. Again, mind is the subtlest instrument available to us and we can use it to assess in much better. However circumstantial evidence implicit in the most improbable event of world – creation and maintenance of creation – coming true is sufficient to refute denial of God as more fantastic than the theory of Olympics being a random event!

An approximate metaphor would be that of dark matter. Scientists agree that given all their definitions and models and frameworks they built to explain the world, there has to be dark matter, spread evenly across. This should be much more than the white matter. But the dark matter remains dark till today. It is around us but we cannot see it. I do not mean that God is dark matter. In fact God is the brightest! But all I imply is that God is also similarly present everywhere if we were to be in a position that we can introspect- which we are already doing!

Dark matter fiasco happened because physics started with certain definitions. Then based on these definitions, certain mathematical models were created. They seemed to explain a lot but fail beyond a point. Now for these equations to make sense dark matter has to exist. But the flaw could be right from the very definitions. Another flaw is the assumption that current mathematics..or mathematics in itself can explain everything!

The Vedic definitions of matter, God and soul are different from popular western perceptions, by the way.

- Since God is everywhere, the theory of Paradise being in some specific place in universe is also baseless. In fact after-life has nothing to do with Paradise or Hell. Paradise or Hell are metaphors to explain to babies. The Vedic view is that there is no specific Paradise or Hell. Instead there is an infallible Law of Actions aka Karma. As per this law, whatever actions we conduct lead to happiness or sorrow depending upon whether they were driven towards wisdom or dumbness. The acquisition of happiness as a result is Paradise and acquisition of sorrow is a Hell. So Paradise and Hell exist right with us every moment. So if Hawking is refuting the geographical Paradise and Hell, he is bang right.

- The afterlife of Vedas mean that the Law of Karma do not cease simply because physical body died. Just as a person does not die by changing clothes or a processor does not destroy because the monitor of computer is broken down, similarly soul is unaffected by destruction of body. The soul, governed by eternal laws of nature controlled by omnipresent omniscient God, takes a new birth that best fits his cumulative wisdom-dumbness combination. The fit decides his species, family, health, destiny etc. Then the future destiny continues to be modified as per the willful acts of the soul. So future destiny at every moment is dependent on the sum total of all deeds conducted till that very moment. Deeds don’t mean physical actions but the intent inspiring these actions. And journey continues.

- When ignorance/ dumbness is destroyed beyond a threshold, the soul does not need to take any future births and is united with supreme bliss of God. He does not transport into a different location but enjoys bliss everywhere.

- When wisdom is destroyed beyond a threshold, soul takes birth as non-human species where the free-will is severely restricted and soul spends time to get rid of dumbness like patients spend time in mental hospitals.

- This earth is not unique. Depending upon the best fit for deeds of a soul, it may be teleported to any of the earths in any specific circumstance.

- Creation and Destruction happen in continuous cycles. The process is beginningless and never-ending.

- Thus the three eternal entities are always present – God, Soul and Nature. During creation, they separate out. During destruction, Nature and Soul directly come under God’s supervision and lose their expressed manifestation. But then again in next cycle, separation happens.

These points are not only the most logical ways to explain observed phenomena of the world, but also most inspiring and purposeful. Further, whether one denies them or agrees to them, they cannot help abiding by these principles. The very fact that Hawkings and Dawkins feel an irresistible urge to promote what is truth as per their best intellects implies that they have the natural urge to seek wisdom and eradicate dumbness. In lines of Vedic wisdom, they also feel the urge to propagate to the world, even though they believe that its all short-term chemical reactions eventually!

Hawking admitted that “I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.” Thus the chemical reaction that refutes afterlife itself looks forward to next continuous moment unhindered by prospects of a death in near future! Despite being a rational scientist who knows that he will eventually die and that whatever he does or does not do does not make any difference, he has the urge to do a lot! He subtly admits that the Intel i7 processor is different from the Samsung hard disk and the LG Monitor!

Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action.”

Now is that not grossly unscientific for a person who believes that life beyond death is non-existent to seek greatest ‘value’ of action? Can Hawking reveal which set of equations led him to conclude so. Its only a personal preference inspired by the indomitable urge to do good, do worthwhile even when having the last breath. Because our entire system is programmed to seek bliss through noble actions and resist abrupt ends.

Had death been such an inescapable truth of final ‘THE END’ why does the DNA make us so scared of death. Why we have a natural aversion to death in all intelligent species. Why does the ‘darkness of Stephen Hawking’ scare us when we are so sure that the sleep never scares us? Our entire mechanism, structure, system at individual or societal level is built on denial of death. How can our DNA, as per evolution, be so contrary to the most observed behavior of the world?

They will loosely say that this happens to preserve the species. But why the hell should a chemical preserve any species and what is its incentive for doing so? And are there any valid proofs to justify so or is it yet another blank theory?

Yoga Darshan attributes this repulsion to death to the fact that the soul has faced death so many times leading to detachment from its loved ones and loved entities that this is the strongest Sanskaar (mental tendency) of any intelligent soul.

Now someone may say that even this theory of life after death is fantastic and unbelievable. Why should this be believed and not what Hawking or Dawkins assert? Here are some pointers:

- At least this theory is billion times more probabilistic than random blind alley theory of Hawking/ Dawkins. Rather, the probability of our existing probability not being random is near to 1.

- This explains many more observations than any other theory in more probable manner (Probability nearing 1).

- This is much more intuitive and as per our innate tendencies. If evolution were to be true through natural selection, this is what nature would want us to believe rather than the dead computer hoax. And since nature has no incentive to be false, whatever is true has to be eventually intuitive as per our nature.

- There is no reason to believe that death leads to permanent destruction of seat of consciousness. Till someone can pinpoint what exactly is seat of consciousness and how can it be destroyed, to claim its permanent destruction would be an extremely superstitious story.

- If someone says that even if processor of consciousness survives death, probability of it getting fitted in a computer aka body again to start functioning again is extremely remote, then this is also flawed logic. Because, firstly, even if the seat of consciousness does not get a body, it only means that the consciousness – feeling of I – is not manifest in crude world. It does not necessarily outrightly deny this possibility. Remember that processor/ computer was just a metaphor to explain something and not consciousness itself!

Secondly, we do not consider life to be probabilistic. Probability only refers to our inability to comprehend the complexities of the orderliness. Thus in our model of world, the world itself was planned and hence our next birth will also be equally planned. I never witnessed an unplanned world and hence it is highly improbable to witness something with very rare probability in future as well.

Remember, our coin always throws a head! Its your problem if you still consider that it was a random event to have 100,000,000 straight heads in a row without a tail!

- Needless to say, the theory is most inspiring, hope-giving, motivating, purposeful and ensures a sane civilized society that is neither superstitious nor blinded by fear, lust, greed.

- To believe that mathematical modeling and physical observations can explain things that are subtler than these crude tools is ridiculous. When Hawking cannot explain what physical phenomena led him to divorce his caring wife and children at an old age to marry his nurse, how can we expect him to explain even subtler and intriguing concepts merely by number crunching?

Mathematical models and observations can provide a boundary to what is correct and what is wrong. So current advancements in science may say that the location of Paradise as given in Bible is a hoax. Or that Bible cannot be right if it says that sun moves round the earth or that first light was created and then sun and stars were created. But that does not mean that it can refuse the presence of a Supreme who is ensuring that laws of nature work with perfection. So perfectly that we call them Law without even knowing what causes them!

To summarize, the Hawking denial of afterlife is nothing more authoritative than Shahrukh loving puppies. The observations and limitations of modern science give even more weightage to a Supreme Entity as well as afterlife than ever before in history of humankind. This belief which forms the innate nature of all living beings including Stephen himself is the reason why world is a sane place. This is the ultimate source of motivation. And this is the most reasonable theory to believe in unless we do not object to believing that all Olympics so far had been purely random events!

Print Friendly


  1. Jason R Prasad says

    Excellent, most intellectual and finely observed article, Agniveer u mate are a legend.
    Bravo, Bravo
    Why oh why are the Indian people so slow to recognize the truth in the Vedas. You are my inspiration Agniveer. Stephen Hawkings theories are biased, he believes in “Aliens”, yet not their creator, he studies the effect but does not know their cause. He is a great mind though he requires to open his mind further and look to more external source for more inspiration, he is a victim of backward christian thinking and like many scientist are rebelling christian ideology but at the same time they lump Sanatan Dharm in the same category without proper research.

    Excellent article, loved it.



    • Krishna says

      Namaste Jason,

      Excellent point, “…he is a victim of backward christian thinking and like many scientist are rebelling christian ideology but at the same time they lump Sanatan Dharm in the same category without proper research.” I noticed a lot of Western scientists make this assertion without even understanding the Dharmic view of the world. It is funny scientist make do this and they come from a profession the demands they do the proper research before making claims, and they have done no research on Dharmic faiths from the Dharmic sources.

      The interesting this is, people like VS Ramachandran one of the top minds in Neuroscience has implied that the Eastern philosophies do understand the fundamental concepts of the mind. What I have noticed is that many people who come from the Dharmic background and are in the top fields of their area of research and science see no conflict between Dharmic faiths and science. Infact they see that they actually explain each other very well.

      Here is link on Ted that shows Vilayanur Ramachandran speech on The Neurons that created civilization and it realated to Dharmic faiths:

  2. says

    Two theories of science goes well with Vedas

    1) 3 Laws of conservation of mass and energy (Explains continuity of life and theory of karma fits well)
    2) 3 Laws of cause and effect relationship (Explains scintillation of life and the existence of creator, observer)

    And rest of science either starts from assumptions, ego and/or ignorance.


  3. Pratibha says

    Well, the article Wisdom of Vedas is logical and excellent. The universe is highly disciplined. All kind of science is existing in universe including mathematics. We only unveil the mystry of the nature and livingbeing for our benefit. Vedas tell us to utilize the life and material for benefit of society.
    Several evidences explain the existence of life after death in Vedic mythology viceversa is unexplainable.

  4. roger says

    wow wow wow! top stuff!

    and what’s the value of any chemical reaction(life of a person) which are regarded precious in almost every religious scriptures?

  5. KalBhairav says

    The news is no different than another news that came around same time – “Shahrukh Khan has started loving puppies”.

    Bingo! On issues like afterlife, etc., one’s being a scientist is as relevant and lends as much weight to the claim as one’s being a taxi driver or janitor. No offense intended against taxi drivers or janitors.

  6. Rajshekhar says

    Excellent Article.Agniveer and Team kudos.Hawking is brain dead and over hyped scientist.I read his books and all his books are illogical. with no proof and even theormes not proven.This guy should have been in orphan house.

  7. KalBhairav says


    Hawking is brain dead…This guy should have been in orphan house.

    Personally, I would refrain from adhominems…But it is your call ultimately.

  8. sanatanaakki says

    Awesome article Agniveer ji..

    So proud of u people… no one can give better explanation…

    God bless you!!


  9. God Exists says

    The problem is Science can never be regarded as absolute. As we can see in the past Dalton proposed that atom is indivisible, but was later proved wrong. So consider works of ppl like stephen hawking to be true is like considering him to be as a demi-god. Which on the very basis contradicts the Atheistic views.

  10. says

    amazing! I am going to share this with all atheist pages of facebook!
    waiting for the blued eyed boy Indian ~Agnostic~’s comments..

    • Indian Agnostic says

      Namste Sarang Bro!

      Lolz.. i agree that brilliant articles like this put ~agnostics~ like me in a really tight spot :)

      The artcile logically decimates Hawkins babble that there’s no after-life.

      what keeps me agnostic is the fact that i am waiting with my fingers crossed on who has got it right:

      This materialist’s view of conscioussness

      OR this post materialist’s view on consciousness

      I am not denying God, just waiting for him to show his signs ;)

      For me , i would better understand God when i better understand the SELF and that is where i currently stand in my spiritual pursuit :)

      Agniveer Ji

      Splendid article! Lets see how the hawking fans take this one

      • says

        Namaste Brother Indian Agnostic

        ————-I am not denying God, just waiting for him to show his signs ;) ————-

        Its just a matter of time before someone from IRF Madarsa comes here and try to guide you to the book of SIGNS (not SCIENCE :) ) and claim that Allah is so great that He made IA of Agniveer feel the need of signs Alhamdulillah :)

  11. Sanjay says

    Are you not presumptuousness when you say only humans? For there must be reason for evolution and logic of these facts.I still don’t understand was the Vedas written before Manu or after? Animals too seem to have religion and other senses, or how come they became humans?.

    • Indian Agnostic says

      Namste Sanjay

      who told you that Humans evolved from animals? even the evolutionists don’t say that now.

      even the theory that we were ape-like has no substance to it.

      • Sanjay says

        In science they speak of common ancestor, not that we have same linage. There are several facts that support this besides the Hindu saying how soul evolves, etc .All animal as such have one. .As there was no mention of humans during the great churning. You live in an extinction period where vast destruction is taking place, tens thousand of species are lost a year how would you recognize there were periods of creation of new species and how they created as never in history such a period existed not even the time of the demise of the dinosaurs. .Logic goes beyond looking at idiot who jump around getting drunk to feel good about themselves.

        • Indian Agnostic says

          Namaste Sanjay

          Don’t science me dear.Science is different than the church of darwin that you belong to. ERV and cambrian explosion are immediate challenges to your church theory of a common ancestor.

          Hinduism does believe in the evolution of souls and also that the material constituents of the world are nothing but a combination of three gunas.Thus it follows that when we look at ourselves and bananas materialistically we are quite similar OR when you look at the entire material world , we are made from the same subatomic particles as far as our bodies are concerned.

          Hinduism believes in transmigration of soul not the body.that’s the correct evolutionary theory as evident from this creature which we see everyday around us but fail to reflect upon

          The caterpillar dissolves into a soup (materialistically speaking) to spring out once again as a completely different material entity(butterfly/moth) but the same soul.

          we see this transmigration everyday and yet refuse it to not hurt the sentiments of the darwinian church. one who is drunk has an excuse for being an idiot in that state, one who is not drunk and still an idiot has a lot to explain and learn


          • Sanjay says

            Neither you know science nor you know Hindu dharma. First every Hindu knows there is a common ancestor it is called Brahma. Try taking a Biology class and explain them your reasoning as you have not disproved the basic tenets of evolution.

            But again let go at it in the story of Garuda (eagle) his father is some Rishi who gives birth to two different species one a snake, the other a garud eagle from two different wives. Now yes it explains your Cambrian explosion, and yes it does not make scientific sense as per se evolution. Or is it even more strange to have a Rishi whose children are non-human?? See in Hindu culture animals and humans are Bhai/ Bhen. There is no way inferior or superior but equality. We learn this in also in Ramayana.

            Evolution of souls can be translated to ways from first animal body to human body evolution, or a soul is first born in animal form then gradual rises to human, but soul is unborn and equal so evolution of body is more likely meaning. First came animals then humans.

            But we must understand thing that are more fundamental that such drastic changes to genetic that is beneficial to the animal are not random genetics mutations as science suggest, but understanding of nature at a more fundamental level. So let say an example I use to be brahachary of 29 years when I went to Ahemdabad after living the A/c life of America. I use to laugh HaHa the natives have not yet adjusted to the heat where I could go in the sun 47 C degree in summer solstices in the tropics, as it is not too difficult to believe such things, but I found it the best time to work that time 2-4 is it an example of adaptation to heat whereas anyone else was scared to go out.. I was a healthy boy but that is not a fundamental genetic change or making a new species, but simple adaptation. So let us say an animal so desired to become a bird he would change his qualities being at the fundamental level and genetics and adapt like his/her bones instead of being filled with liquid would be filled with air, now such drastic re-engineering of a species according to Hindus took little time, but knowledge at a fundamental level which allowed to adapt, but according to evolution took a long time. See science supports Hindu dharma, besides why animal waste useless time in activities like slow evolution as some knowledge that is fundamental must have been known. .

            You should be a little more literate. Now you can desire to fundamentally change and adapt and why most mutations results are like cancer and genetic disorders? Again supports Hindu thought which is more scientifically correct knowledge at a fundamental level creates a new species.

            Now try to think and stop name calling, being attached to your body is a bad quality according to Hindu dharma as it is perishable but not the soul.

          • Indian Agnostic says

            Namaste Sanjay

            Your post contradicts your own position.You started with upholding the evolution theory as sacrosanct and now you agree with me that the theory is “unscientific” at many places.Well that is what I wanted you to agree so there’s no conflict now.

            BTW, You dint care to watch the videos and hence your ignorance of the fact that all those in fact refute organic evolution as well as macro evolution and the cambrian explosion evidence destroys the Common Ancestor argument.

            again hoping that you are open to learning , watch this video to know more about cambrian explosion


            Hinduism , as you believe it (i.e. the puranic view), is something which i don’t believe in.And i have good reasons to reject it. to you your belief and to me mine.

            Finally, if you look at the trail of our discussion, it was you who put his money in the name calling business assuming that i didn’t know a thing about evolution.I just retorted in kind.

            Treat may as illiterate if you must, but don’t pass your conjectures as science that too with the claim that reptiles were the offspring of some rishi in the same breath.It’s difficult to swallow for any educated mind.


          • Sanjay says

            Now again is it as unintelligent as evolution, see order and other things maintained in fossil records. Our stories say that the Rishi was doing an experiment to create a new species something more powerful. This was the basic story behind gaurda, and snakes species being created. So in Hindu dharma it is pre-planed experiments that is creating a species, that have niches. Yes Birds and reptiles are related according to science and evolution, but different.

            I know from name that you maybe an agnostic so will doubt, but it seems reasonable as people today are doing genetic engineering, and that there maybe some scientist/intellectual in the past like an rishi which is called the highest intellectual who did the same according to Hindu dharma/ or the stories we read. To me it is logical that a species evolved through some desire to do so as opposed to random evolution. Science neglects this possibility of desire on part of animals to evolve as they see them in non-human terms. As an Hindu, I completely disagree with this part everything is not random. I know from experiments animals too have desire, like simple hold a mango and or piece of bread. A cow will love mango, pair, peach, etc. One time I gave a cow a fruit the cow followed me. So you see they have desires and feelings too. Next in hot 45 C degree weather they sit in shade of tree not in direct sun.

            Well you are correct everyone has there beliefs, but Hindu stories are very interesting and provoke thought.

  12. Anupam says

    Phenomenal….As such all these things are easy to understand given a person allows some light in the brain. The point is that nobody is interested in logic whatsoever even after pretending to be logical in all ways. Even if I see people around me, whenever they indulge is any intellectual discussion, the objective is to refute an individual not a thought. Whole discussion goes out to be just throwing topics for debate instead of concluding . Because as soon as the time comes to conclude, action is created. And when action is created individuals who are already mentally weak fall back to sophism and refuting individuals. Thats how the present world is. “Throw as many as bolls possible without knowing whether there is enough space out there”.

  13. Ivan says

    Hi Agniveer! These excellent thoughts of you should be taught at schools! A fantastic article! God bless you!

  14. tariqaziz says

    Soul cannot be proven with the help of science. Soul is a metaphysical concept and I am afraid will always be………and so will be the concept of reincarnation and karma.

    so why bother with the views of physicists who cant understand meta physics?

    • says

      Namaste Brother tariqaziz

      ————Soul cannot be proven with the help of science. Soul is a metaphysical concept and I am afraid will always be………and so will be the concept of reincarnation and karma.————

      So you agree Rebirth and Law of Karma exist despite no scientific evidences just like “Ruh” or soul exists without any scientific proofs?

  15. baraka bamma says

    hey bro tariq i totally agree with you there, problem the way i see it is every single soul(atman) is at a different stage of progress towards moksha, hence we see so manhy alternative views towards spirituality. and those that arent spiritual will take longer to salvation than those that are.

  16. suneil says

    there is a concept of god in the west ,
    scientist in the west like hawking have another concept of god and afterlife nurtured throughout history in the western mind, that god is a man with a grey beard. a scepter and judging like a dictator, christianity is the cause itself nowaday ppl leave it and embrace budism and hinduism,
    hawking rejects a cruel god sitting on a throne who decided his karma, ofcourse he will curse afterlife and the god-concept of the west
    einstein and oppenheimer concluded there is more we can see and explain, they were no atheist , the more you iknow the more humbleness,
    hawkin is angry and proud, even man in wheelchair can have big ego
    tace care

  17. Apolloreach says

    Stephen Hawking may be a great physicist and his spirit, in the face of his physical challenges must be appreciated. I’d like to treat whatever he said about God and after life as his personal opinions. That is that. While Vedas may not contain the alpha and omaga of science, they do open a window into the inquisitive spirit of the Vedic seers ( I believe that hunting for science in religious scriptures is like driving a round peg in a square hole, as scriptures have a LAST verse but science is dynamic); the Vedas clearly articulate the limitations of the human mind (bound by time) in realizing the unkowable SOURCE (which is timeless).

    There are 5 verses in Rig Veda 1/170/1 – 5. These verses form a dialogue between Sage Agastya and Indra. Agastya, by the sheer force of his thoughts is breaking through the barriers of his mind, reaching the realm of God without first being developed as a fully functional being in all his levels of consciousness. The eagerness to experience God gets the better of sage Agastya and his senses and he refuses to progressively sacrifice his SELF to the stepping stone (which in this case refers to Indra) in his quest for God. At this point, sage Agastya gets pushed back by Indra who does not allow him to proceed to the realm of God.The arena for this episode is Agastya’s own mind.

    Indra says: THAT which is beyond time and space (God) cannot be known by that which is in time and space (Agastya and other mortals like us).

    Indra goes on to explain that it is the progressive transcendence (of ego-consciousness) through divine activities that will take a mortal towards the immortal truth. Agastya realizes his folly and goes on to progressively sacrifice his ego conciousness through the mandated activities (karma).

    1. Indra: It is not now, nor is It tomorrow; who knoweth that which is Supreme and Wonderful? It has motion and action in the consciousness of another, but when It is approached by the thought, It vanishes.

    2. Agastya: Why dost thou seek to smite us, O Indra? The Maruts are thy brothers. By them accomplish perfection; slay us not in our struggle.

    3. Indra: Why, O my brother Agastya, art thou my friend, yet settest thy thought beyond me? For well do I know how to us thou willest not to give thy mind.

    4. Indra: Let them make ready the altar, let them set Agni in blaze in front. It is there, the awakening of the consciousness to Immortality. Let us two extend for thee thy effective sacrifice.

    5. Agastya: O Lord of substance over all substances of being, thou art the master in force! O Lord of Love over the powers of love, thou art the strongest to hold in status! Do thou, O lndra, agree with the Maruts, then enjoy the offerings in the ordered method of the Truth.

    What these verses portray is an important law in physics on Space-Time. Today’s physcists have not even completely concurred on what the reference frame ought to be for viewing space-time (symmetric? Asymmetric?Stationary? Static). But Vedas seem to espouse the thought that unless an individual conciousness transcends time / space, the Supreme Lord can never be realized. So, from where Stephen Hawking’s today is, his statement of God or afterlife being absent is his personal assumption. It has no hard evidence when, man is still physically bound by space and time.

  18. वेद विभु says

    ईश्वर जानने योग्य ही नहीं है या कहें जो न जाना जा सकता है अज्ञेय न सद् न असद् (न व्यक्त न अव्यक्त) फिर भी मानव मन उसे अद्वैत रूप में, द्वैत रूप में, त्रिशक्ति में – किसी न किसी प्रकार व्यक्त करने के लिए प्रयास करता है। कपिल, कणाद, पतंजलि जो षड् दर्शनों में तीन दर्शनों का प्रतिनिधित्व करते हैं वर्तमान एग्नोस्टिक के निकट कहे जाएंगे फिर भी वे सम्मान के योग्य हैं, गौतम बुद्ध ईश्वर के विषय में न कहते हुए भी जिस कोमलता से मानव के प्रति करुणा रखते हैं अवतार की श्रेणी में आते हैं और इसी विचार परंपरा में आज विश्व में अनेक गुणवान लोग हैं। अतः उस परंपरा की जिसमें विचारवान विरोध भी साथ बैठकर बिना ईर्ष्या के कर सकें रक्षा की जानी चाहिए। अब्रह्म के दो पंथ में आबद्ध जन न तो यह समझना चाहते हैं और न ही विचार के आयाम पर वे इसे समझ सकेंगे, उनको संख्या, समूह व शक्ति से भिन्न कोई विचार नहीं है। भारत की या कहें हिंदुओं की अथवा आर्यों की विचार परंपरा का विज्ञान आगे बढ़ेगा तो स्वतः ही विश्व कल्याण के स्वर गुंजायमान होंगे अतः बढ़े चलो या कह लो नेति नेति

  19. Surya Singh says

    Which bhashya of vedas is acceptable? I mean who was/is the man, we can rely on to read the correct bhashya in English or Hindi?

    • KalBhairav says


      Acceptable according to whom?

      The way I see it, the Vedas are highly philosophical. Seemingly contradictory yet completely self-consistent schools of thought (Dvaita, VA, Advaita, etc.) have all been provided a firm footing on the Vedas. Perhaps, the contradiction is in our minds. :-)

      Why dont you evaluate yourself any of these bhashyas and decide the one that suits you?

  20. Surya Singh says

    To KalBhairav,

    Acceptable according to the rational mind human being. Acceptable according to the evidences from grammar of Sanskrit. Acceptable according to the manner so that i can prove my interpretation is correct in the particular context and the particular meaning of the word.

    Is there no bhashya provided that can consider as a correct one and all arya samajis are agreed to that one? Will you please provide me any of the bhashya available either on Internet or in books that i can read and understand the real meaning of the verses on which some Muslims raising their concern and spreading myths about the glorious books of knowledge.

    Please let me know in case of any concern.

    Surya Singh.

  21. KalBhairav says


    I am not an Arya Samaji…So, I cannot answer about the book/commentary they agree upon.

    Acceptable according to the rational mind human being. Acceptable according to the evidences from grammar of Sanskrit. Acceptable according to the manner so that i can prove my interpretation is correct in the particular context and the particular meaning of the word.

    IMO, proving that one interpretation is correct and another wrong, is nigh impossible. If it were possible to prove that Shankara’s interpretation is better than Madhavacharya’s dont you think it would have been done by now?

    Will you please provide me any of the bhashya available either on Internet or in books that i can read and understand the real meaning of the verses on which some Muslims raising their concern and spreading myths about the glorious books of knowledge.

    Muslims are stupid. They are afraid, I think, of the impact Hindu revivalism in general, and Agniveer/Satyagni in particular, are having on their fellow Muslims. The light of critical analysis is exposing Islam/Christianity like never before in history. Hinduism is probably the only religion out there whose glow is getting brighter. In my experience, they end up talking about Aryan Invasion Theory and Birth-based caste system. Both of these have been thoroughly debunked. You can look up and link to articles from Agniveer to counter such propaganda. Even after that some of them will continue to claim the Vedas allow discrimination. That’s why they are stupid.

    I have some translations/commentaries on the Upanishads/Brahmasutras published by Ramakrishna Matt. They have an online book store. You can look it up. I am unsure if these will suffice for your purposes though.

  22. Dr khan says

    Nice info brother. . Everything needs a creator and universe is not an exception. May allah help us to find true path.

  23. says

    @ Dr Khan.. ” Every thing needs a creator ” – This is the basic question. But the truth is not Genesis of Bible, there is no doubt in it. And the theory of koran can not meet the science, even if we consider koran is not a book of Science, rather a book of signs, still those signs are not in accordance with the scientific revelations.

    Veda takes a different view, it says what we see, like the earth, other planets, sun, moon, stars, etc. are created, and God created them, but 3 things are not created, they are eternal. They were always present, are present and will always present. One day, this created elements will seize to exist, there will be some other things at their place. But these three eternal things will not end, because there is no beginning to them.

    Koran and Bible say only one is eternal. Vedas say three are eternal.
    Koran and Bible say, the eternal one is not doing any thing today. He created the universe and kept quite, then he sent some of his prophets, and again kept quite and is waiting for the day on which he will destroy all his creations, except the hell and the heaven. Then it says the souls will be either in the Hell or i the Heaven. Here both koran and bible agree another eternal except the 1st one.

    But Vedas say, all the eternal entities perform, are performing and will continue to perform. Vedas say there is one place called Hell, where souls will go to be punished for the bad deeds, and soon his punishment is over he will come out clean with a different life (The system of Judiciary on whole globe is based on this philosophy). There is one Heaven, where the soul will go, but for a limited time. Then he will again come back to earth to perform. This Hell and Heaven will perish some day too. And there will be some other things in its place.

    Koran and Bible say there is only earth in the universe which has life on it.
    Vedas say there are “n” number of lands with life (the theory on which NASA is working to search another land with life).

    Koran and Bible say the 1st eternal thing created the world. Vedas too say the same. But the question “How” has been properly answered by Vedas in Nasadiya Sukta of Rig Veda (similar to big-bang theory, with a little difference. And the differences are questions yet to be answered). Dr. Zakeer nayak claimed Koran hints to Big-Bang theory. Even if we agree to Zakeer Nayak, vedas are better, because, Vedas don’t give hints, rather explain in detail.

    1. Koran and Bible identified two eternal things one the God and another is Soul, but Vedas identify 3 eternal things.

    2. Koran and Bible say God was doing nothing, one day he thought of creating the world, created and kept quite, one day sent a prophet and kept quite, and one day he will destroy all his creations except hell, will punish those who dont accept him, and will again keep quite. But Vedas say God was always performing, and will always continue to perform. What ever is created by him will be destroyed one day including the Hell and the Heaven. One will go either to Hell or Heaven for his deeds, whether he accept God or not. But not for ever, one day he will come out clean to perform again.

    3. Koran and Bible say there is only one land on which life exists, Vedas say there are many numbers of Planets with life.

    4. Koran and Bible say God created every thing in his hand, but Veda say every thing is created by the 2nd eternal thing i.e. the nature present within the matter.

    5. Koran and Bible propagate a theory of creation which is not justified by science, but the creation theory by Veda is accepted by one school of scientists who accept big bang theory.

    Dr. Khan, I have just sited the differences in Vedas and Koran. Its you to think and decide which are better. I did not made any bad remark, and don’t want to. These are the differences only. What is the truth is unknown to me too. May Allah (God or Paramatma what ever u say) will help us some day to reach the truth.

    • KalBhairav says


      I enjoyed your response. Just one additional point where Abrahamic religions completely fail. That is the Problem of Evil. Reincarnation/Karma offer an explanation of ALL evil in the world. Abrahamic theodicies are completely clueless :-)

  24. Surya Singh says

    Awesome Mr. Akhil.

    Not matter whether vedas are revealed by god or not. No matter that Arya people are deriving wrong interpretation of vedas verses. But the concepts that we Aryas found in vedas are so clear and powerful that no other alternatives can replace them. I would like to suggest Muslim brothers that do not read vedas in sanskrit because interpreting them is beyond your effort. If you are really interested in debate and to identify the truth then read the plain text provided by Arya people in hindi or in the language that you understand best.

    Ishwar is definitly present but approch of the people from Christian and Islam religion is in the wrong direction.

  25. says

    @Surya Singh :- Dear, no muslim reads Vedas in Sanskrit, because they don’t know sanskrit. What they do is, they read the Muller translation of the same. Here they are misguided.

    There are only one reason to avoid Vedas, and that is the “ego”. They simply can not accept any one other then them can be better.

    take a stand that Vedas are not from God, still they are the oldest human scripture. Being a human, how can one reject creation of an earlier human ? They say Adam was the 1st human, and we all are from him. Even they belief this to be true, then too they should respect Vedas, because those who wrote Vedas are also from that Adam.

    Look at the attitude of present muslim scholars –

    1. They find sex, nudity in hindu temples and reject them to be Godly, but accept sex slaves, sex with a gal of 9 years, and other similar stories as Godly.

    2. They find bowing before idols bad, but bow down before the Idol of Kabaa.

    3. They show us the verses of Vedas that sought God is one, but don’t accept Koran is copied from Vedas.

    4. They show some verses from Vedas and say Vedas say earth is flat and reject vedas, at the same time they keep on reading the verses of Koran that says earth is flat, still don’t reject Koran.

    5. They comment on Hanuman and raise question how can he fly, at the same time they believe that a donkey can fly.

    6. They find bad remarks against women in Manusmriti and say these are bad, but they don’t feel bad for the remarks of Koran against women, and they don’t oppose beating of women allowed in Koran. Manusmriti is better, it imposes punishment for beating women. It is said that a man can not raise his hand before an woman.

    7. They find more than one wives of Hindu deities and say it is bad, but at the same time, they dont find any bad in 4 wives concept of Islam.

    There are many more. The list is inclusive.

  26. sid says

    “What is material, based on available evidence, is that it is significantly more (at least billions of times) more probable that the entire creation process has been a planned process with a purpose rather than a mere random chance event!”
    ———when nearly 99.9% of the known universe till now has been seen to be non-life supporting, and the chances of destruction of the known creations(of an intelligent creator) are high by the effect of natural or non-earthly phenomena,how can a claim that “creation is a planned process” be made? and what would that “plan” be?

    • KalBhairav says


      If you hold that the big bang initially produced purely insentient material which comprises 99.9% of the known universe, you need to establish how sentience emerged from insentience without seeking help of an intelligent creator beyond the physical laws. AFAIK, despite theories like abiogenesis, Miller-Urey experiment, etc., no complete naturalistic understanding of this has been achieved yet.

      As regards, the “plan” of the creator, I believe Hindu creationism as alluded to in the Nasadiya Suktha is essentially agnostic. The thing is, we may not quite know or comprehend the “plan”.

      What we have are some clues from Hindu scriptures (Vedas and Bhagvad Gita [which is a more practical rendering of the allegorical and philosophical message of the Vedas]) about the purpose and meaning of life.

      • sid says

        there was a time when the big bang was regarded the ab initio point of time, however today there has been a lot of work done which go an entirely different lane, if not outrightly rejecting the big bang.what is still difficult to ascertain with present science is , whether the entire mass created at the time of big bang was totally insentient and that sentience was an offspring of insentience, or rather,sentience had somehow survived the big bang(chaotic inflation theory).
        yes, a complete naturalistic theory is yet to be proposed on the origins of life, however the Miller-Urey experiment does empirically exhibit an important, though tiny development of the basic building matter viz amino acids. if the A,B,C of sentience can be built through inorganic matter, the next step (of constructing words from the alphabets)could well be a possibility, albeit in a long time.And empiricial results matter in science, wherein the observation must fit in the theory(which is a bit difficult in the case of creationism).
        when the author states that the probability of creation being “a well planned process” is far more than it being a random event, it brings forth a few questions.
        If creation is a plan, is destruction also one? and what would be the underlying reasons? it cannot be simply karma, as that is too subjective an issue. and as i had mentioned, what of the various earthly or non-earthly forces which do have an impact on life on the earth? how do these fit in the plan?
        einstein had famously proclaimed “god does not play dice” in favor of his assumptions of the orderliness of the universe. the subsequent development of the quantum theory disproved the notion of such orderliness being the norm of every domain of the tiny ,unseeable, atomic/electronic level, it is all probability, and random events ,rather than a definite route. and this theory has till now been more accurate than any other.hence, i tilt more towards the random event course.

        • KalBhairav says


          the subsequent development of the quantum theory disproved the notion of such orderliness being the norm of every domain of the tiny ,unseeable, atomic/electronic level, it is all probability, and random events ,rather than a definite route. and this theory has till now been more accurate than any other.hence, i tilt more towards the random event course.

          Well, I am unsure how this buttresses the atheist position. If fundamentally everything is chaotic, how can chaos produce order without an external force/”sustainer” [whom theists believe to be God]. We first have to resolve if we see order in the world. I see order in the world at the macro level. You dont seem to (correct me if I am wrong). Whatever final theory science comes up with, it cannot answer what caused it. [I will appreciate if we do not go down the route of asking what caused "God". The Hindu Brahman, per scriptures, is eternal and uncaused. This is a belief. This is a brute fact that cannot be explained by anything more fundamental. If the atheist position is that the universe was similary eternal without the need for a "God" then you have to likewise accept that this is a belief and a brute fact beyond any more fundamental explanation.]

          Our senses/scientific equipments, etc., are notoriously bad in providing us with an accurate picture of reality. Our human ears/brain are incapable of cognizing sounds beyond the 20 Hz-20K Hz frequency range. Does that mean such sounds dont exist? If you agree that our senses/scientific equipments do NOT produce an accurate representation of reality, we have a defeater for nearly anything we can talk about including atheism.

          As regards destruction, it has more to do with the Hindu belief in cyclicity. If Brahman/evil/souls/Reincarnation/Karma existed eternally AND there was creation, then one needs destruction to make it logically work. That is, if we have eternality AND creation, it can happen only if we have destruction.

          • sid says

            the theistic take that creation has a purpose and that the sustainer is responsible for the orderliness ,does not seem to fit in at electronic level. as quantum theory , till now, has been correctly predicting(to a highly accurate degree) the strange behaviour of subatomic/electronic matter, i would lean more towards a fundamentally chaotic/probabilistic origin. yes, the macro world shows order, but is it always so?as we see, entities spontaneously approach disorderliness even in the natural world. and with time, this disorderliness(entroy) increases. so, i would not say i see the world being in exact order, though a snapshot of it shows orderliness.

            “If fundamentally everything is chaotic, how can chaos produce order without an external force/”sustainer” [whom theists believe to be God]”
            we can call it the concept of emergence,wherein the results for a macro state can be viewed as a limiting case/expected value of an experiment of an infinitely huge sample.
            now, does the theist believe in total orderliness(without any inherent degree of chaos) as ordained by the almighty or in the almightly being the external force which causes order out of chaos?

            agreed our perceptive senses/equipments are not yet strong enough to tell us about everything, yet, i think we have made a lot of, until the existence of something is proved by experiment, we really cannot hold it as true,right?
            scientifically speaking,unless proven empirically,a thing can only be postulated upon and not accepted as the ultimate truth.similar is the case, i feel, with creationism(as of now).

            coming back to destruction, one can see in India ,many who claim destruction as a karmic consequence. if, as you mention, it has more to do with cyclicity, how does the concept of karma fit in?

  27. heihachi says

    until the existence of something is proved by experiment, we really cannot hold it as true,right?

    @sid, if you are suggesting that gods existence cannot be proved then on what grounds can you say that? i agree that there is chaos in this world. there is orderliness also. but from chaos only carnage and damage is the result. most intelligent theorists will accept that this universe portrays intelligent design. for an intelligent design to exist there must also be an intelligent designer.

    Take the case of something as ordinary as a light bulb, one can see how much careful and meticulous planning must have gone ahead in order to produce such a product. So now if i were to wait around hoping that the random ‘emergence’ concept will produce one for me then god knows i will be waiting an eternity and still nothing will happen. can you name anything being created which does not have a creator?

    As for your question, creation, maintenence, destruction has nothing to do with karma, these ar automatic processes that are happening continuously since eternity.

    • sid says

      @ heihachi:
      extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. the claim of an intelligent consciousness/ designer outside the realm of space and time IS a claim which requires empirical backing.
      you are right about the light bulb analogy. but there is a flaw in the argument, i feel. the bulb had been designed with a definite purpose, while we still do not know of there being any definite purpose of the universe, or even life as we know it on our planet.
      about random mutations, YES, they are in fact a truth, and even the time scale you mentioned is what sentient beings have taken to reach their complex forms as we observe them now.
      “can you name anything being created which does not have a creator?”
      yes,infinitesimal virtual particles flicker in and out of existence in vaccum without aany external agent, and this was proved just last year by chalmers university physicists(thus proving true the dynamical casimir effect).

      • KalBhairav says


        the claim of an intelligent consciousness/ designer outside the realm of space and time IS a claim which requires empirical backing.

        Applies to Abrahamics only. Hinduism is different. Brahman can be construed as being coeval with time, space, Jivas [souls], Prakriti [material cause] of the universe. Brahman did not create time or space by being outside of them.

        yes,infinitesimal virtual particles flicker in and out of existence in vaccum without aany external agent, and this was proved just last year by chalmers university physicists(thus proving true the dynamical casimir effect).

        I’d like to study this more. Can you provide some link?

        In general, I think atheists are shooting themselves in the foot by arguing that there can be an uncaused effect. Are you claiming the Big Bang [BB] didnt have a cause? Due to the “dynamical casimir effect” have scientists abandoned their quest to figure out what causes/preceded the BB?

        • sid says

          a similar question for hinduism too. isnt the brahman regarded a supreme spirit/consciousness pervading the universe?now, that is still a philosophical claim, without any solid evidence.
          herez a link for the casimir effect experiment:

          ” ‘Are you claiming the Big Bang [BB] didnt have a cause? Due to the “dynamical casimir effect” have scientists abandoned their quest to figure out what causes/preceded the BB?’ ”
          no, I am not.the sentence which you have mentioned was an answer to hehaichi’s question of whether we know some fundamental entity which is not created by a creative agent.
          my statement on the dynamical Casimir effect was in this context.what I wished to convey was that fundamental entities create and annihilate themselves in the quantum realm spontaneously. that does not mean the ” Big bang” puzzle is solved. however, such spontaneous events might have cumulatively resulted in the Big Bang.

          as to the Big Bang theory, with current scientific models, it is difficult to extrapolate and reach the exact point of the Big Bang per se, when there was a singularity(prior to a certain time period of 10^(-43) seconds post the Big bang, known as the Planck era). Physicists are looking for probable causes of the big bang. M-theory and the various string theories are possible contenders for such predictions.just that experimental verification is not on the table, as of now.

        • sid says

          a similar question for hinduism too. isnt the brahman regarded a supreme spirit/consciousness pervading the universe?now, that is still a philosophical claim, without any solid evidence.
          herez a link for the casimir effect experiment:
          http://www . sciencedaily . com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm

          ” ‘Are you claiming the Big Bang [BB] didnt have a cause? Due to the “dynamical casimir effect” have scientists abandoned their quest to figure out what causes/preceded the BB?’ ”
          no, I am not.the sentence which you have mentioned was an answer to hehaichi’s question of whether we know some fundamental entity which is not created by a creative agent.
          my statement on the dynamical Casimir effect was in this context.what I wished to convey was that fundamental entities create and annihilate themselves in the quantum realm spontaneously. that does not mean the ” Big bang” puzzle is solved. however, such spontaneous events might have cumulatively resulted in the Big Bang.

          as to the Big Bang theory, with current scientific models, it is difficult to extrapolate and reach the exact point of the Big Bang per se, when there was a singularity(prior to a certain time period of 10^(-43) seconds post the Big bang, known as the Planck era). Physicists are looking for probable causes of the big bang. M-theory and the various string theories are possible contenders for such predictions.just that experimental verification is not on the table, as of now.

          • KalBhairav says


            now, that is still a philosophical claim, without any solid evidence.

            Philosophy/metaphysics doesnt need evidence. Science does. For instance, we have no evidence that we did NOT come about 5 minutes ago with preloaded memory. Certain avanues of such metaphysical speculations are indeed dead ends. The question of existence of God is not. While we may extrapolate from the known to the unknown, and work out details to the best of our logic, the fact that we dont see God or have evidence doesnt mean God doesnt exist. In fact, the theist will disagree with you that there is no evidence. For the theist, EVERYTHING is an evidence of God.

            In general, ex nihilo nihil fit. From nothing comes nothing. I havent yet read your link, but I am skeptical things can arise without pre-existing matter/cause. In fact the general causal factors of the twin-fabric of time and space are (unstated) causes of ANY change. Why are all examples of something coming out of nothing based in the quantum realm? You see, very few people are capable of being able to evaluate the veracity of such claims. Do you have any other example from day to day occurences where something arises spontaneously?

          • Kalki Vaisna says

            Kalbhairev I hope you remember wish me I’ll luck and that I will disappear.remember that?ive got a statement for all of you!how dare you Indians ,Arabs &chinese ruin my beliced Mahabharata?how dare claim knowledge of my Vedas?how dare claim truth when you speak with a forked tongue!i haven’t forgotten anything!i am back and you have ruined my planet!wirh lies!you priests,inams&brahmins will pay severely for what you inflicted on the innocent!you keep praying for continuous rebirth or heaven and keep spewing lies regarding my dharma!you have no clue my child!i am coming in my true non human form soon and I will personally ends this but first in my human form I am going to see who is worthy of this generation for this is the last generation for the children of Mahabharata that includes Arabians Indians and Chinese are going to start the next nuclear war that will destroy everything and then i vaisna will come!you won’t have any say when I come on that form you Muslims Catholics Hindus and hypocritical Buddhist!the reckoning has begun no one can stop it now! It’s has been settled!i have seen enough!

  28. Jonathan CHM says

    The explanation has been found not to be justifiable in reality due to the following reasons:

    a) How could we compare computers and human beings in the sense that they are of two different natures? Computer does not have soul and yet human beings have soul. Besides, Computer’s system is very rigid and not flexible and creative and yet human mind is not subject to restriction and can be very creative. As computers and human beings are in two different natures, how could he link up the two to conclude the non-existence of after-life.

    b) There is no relationship between heaven and computer. Computer is limited in size and yet heaven is unlimited in space. As there is no relationship between computer and heaven, how could he link up this to human life to be computer and conclude that there is no heaven?

    • says

      Namaste Jonathan

      I think he (Stephen Hawking) made mistake while presuming “non existence of soul” just like you did while presuming “existence of soul” in order to disprove/prove afterlife :)

      But the very debate is on the issue whether soul (some uncreated and metaphysical entity with the property “consciousness”) exists or not! This article addresses this most fundamental issue.

  29. Jason Tannery says

    The following are the evidence to prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory:

    The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’ as shown in the website address

    According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

    As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

    The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’ that has been extracted from

    The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is…

  30. Jason Tannery says

    Big Bang theory has been used to support that this universe could be formed out of chaos.

    Refer to the website address,, regarding to the 1st law of Newton’s Principle. It is mentioned that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. If this concept has been applied to the formation of this universe, it implies that this universe would remain nothing as it was until external force that would cause it to change. Or in other words, if there could be no external force or substance that could cause the formation of this universe, everything would remain as it was and the universe, that would remain nothing, would continue to remain nothing.

    If this universe could be created something out of nothing, there must be the external force that would cause something to be created out of nothing. Stephen Hawking might comment that it was gravity or quantum theory or etc. However, there must have external force that would cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work. If there would not be any external force to cause gravity or quantum theory or etc., to be at work in the formation of this universe, how could there be the formation of this universe since this world would remain nothing until eternity as supported by 1st law of Newton’s principle? Thus, the concept that this universe could be created something out of nothing is questionable from scientific point of view.

    Newton’s principle even mentions that every object in this universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between two objects. This theory gives the implication that there have to be some objects or masses in order to attract force, i.e. gravity. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which gravity could exist at the absence of objects or masses…

  31. Jason Tannery says

    prior to the formation of this universe.

    Even if one insists that this theory could be correct, how could quantum theory or gravity or etc., be so efficient to manage the universe well in such a way that it could create sophisticated earth which plants and animals could survive here? What made the earth to be created far from the sun and not just next to it? For instance, if this earth was created a short distance just next to the sun, all animals and plants would not survive. Thus, the creation of this universe could not be co-incidence and this certainly puts quantum theory to be in doubts pertaining to its creation from something out of nothing.

  32. Jason Tannery says

    Refer to the website address,, pertaining to general relativity. It is mentioned in this website 6th line after the title of ‘’Introduction to general relativity’ that the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time. As the phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, is mentioned for general relativity, it gives the implication that there have to be some kind of masses in order to create gravitational attraction through warping of space and time. Thus, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity or dark energy could exist prior to the formation of this universe at the absence of masses or objects in order to create something out of nothing. Or in other words, in order that gravitational force or dark energy would exist, there must be masses in this universe to interact in space and time in order to generate gravitational force.

    Refer to the above website 17th line after the title of ‘Introduction to general relativity. It is mentioned that general relativity also predicts novel effects of gravity such as, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and an effect of gravity of time known as gravitational time dilation. Let’s examine all these factors, i.e. gravitational waves, gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation below:

    Refer to the website address,, pertaining to gravitational waves. It is mentioned in this website 10th line after the title of ‘Gravitational wave’ that the existence of gravitational waves is possibly a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of general relativity since it brings the concept of a limiting speed of propagation of the physical interactions with it. The phrase, Lorentz invariance of general relativity…brings… the physical interactions…, here gives the implication that gravitational waves have to be dealt with physical interactions or masses…

  33. Jason Tannery says

    As gravitational masses have to be dealt with masses, it opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory in which Hawking mentioned that gravitational wave could exist at the presence of substances or masses prior to the formation of this universe. As gravitational waves have to be dealt with substances or masses, it is irrational for Stephen Hawking to use it to support that gravity or dark energy could exist at the absence of masses so as to create something out of nothing.

    Refer to the website address,, pertaining to the gravitational lens. It is mentioned that a gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. The phrase, a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, gives a strong proof for a must to have matters or substances in order to activate a gravitational lens. Thus, gravitational lens in general relativity needs to rely on masses or substances in order to be generated and this opposes Stephen Hawking’s theory that gravity could exist at the absence of substance to create something out of nothing.

    Refer to website address,, pertaining to gravitational time dilation. It is mentioned that gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

    Refer to the website address,, under the sub-title of ‘Potential energy’ pertaining to gravitational potential. The following is the extract of the formula…

  34. Jason Tannery says

    The gravitational potential (V) is the potential energy (U) per unit mass:
    U = mV
    where m is the mass of the object. The potential energy is the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving the body to its given position in space from infinity. If the body has a mass of 1 unit, then the potential energy to be assigned to that body is equal to the gravitational potential. So the potential can be interpreted as the negative of the work done by the gravitational field moving a unit mass in from infinity

    From the above formula above, it is obvious that U (the potential energy or dark energy or gravity) has a direct relationship with m (the mass of the object). If m = 0, U (the dark energy would turn up to be 0 since U (the potential energy) would turn up to 0 whatever the number that V has when V is multiplied by m that is equal to 0. Thus, the generation of potential energy in general relativity would certainly have found to have conflict with Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy or gravity could exist at the absence of masses or substances prior to the formation of this universe so as to create something out of nothing.

    Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking has abused general relativity to support his quantum theory in which something could be created out of nothing since general relativity demands masses or substances in order to generate dark energy or gravity.

  35. Shawn Finkler says

    You can’t disprove the tooth fairy, does that mean it’s worth believing in? The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the person doubting it. You should look up the celestial teapot. This is how it goes, I could say I believe a teapot is orbiting the sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical to expect others not to doubt me on the grounds that they could not prove me wrong, I could also add that it is undetectable by any scientific device we have discovered. Does that still mean you should believe me or that you would need to disprove what I’m saying?

    There are so many supernatural, magical and religious beliefs out there that all claim to be correct, it’s a wonder that you don’t realize you can’t disprove any other religious belief either. Can you disprove that it’s not Zeus up there on Mount Olympus? Or Thor flying around the cosmos with his hammer?

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    I think when you say the world is a “sane” place you are trying to argue that because the cosmos functions (at all) that something has to maintain it? That’s a rehashing of the complexity argument for intelligent design, but in reality things would be much more simple if they were designed intelligently, not more complex.

    • says

      Namaste Shawn Finkler

      ——-You can’t disprove the tooth fairy, does that mean it’s worth believing in?——

      How does belief in a God (as discussed in this site and not any biblical tyrant living in 4th heaven) become a tooth fairy and its denial scientific?

      —–The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the person doubting it——

      Aren’t you claiming the non existence of God? If no then we have no conflict, if yes, BOP lies equally with you as it lies with any theist. You are not doubting, you are claiming that God does not exist. Aren’t you?

      ——–You should look up the celestial teapot….. Does that still mean you should believe me or that you would need to disprove what I’m saying?——–

      You can claim anything, I wont give damn to it unless believing/disbelieving your claim is of any use. Belief in God, as discussed in the article, is basis of morality and the very urge of arguing (which you are trying to do right now) that differentiate you from a chemical reaction happening in a test tube or a stone residing alongside a road! You prove to me that the concept of teapot does any value addition to my journey of truth seeking, I will think of it then.

    • says


      ——-There are so many supernatural, magical and religious beliefs out there that all claim to be correct, it’s a wonder that you don’t realize you can’t disprove any other religious belief either.——-

      You are on right place where you can see how the myths of 4th or 7th heaven tribal beliefs or the beliefs of so called intellectuals aka chemical reactions (life as per them is nothing more than few chemicals reacting inside a test tube) are busted and DISPROVED.

      ——–Can you disprove that it’s not Zeus up there on Mount Olympus? Or Thor flying around the cosmos with his hammer?——

      Why should I disprove it? Asking for “why” is equally important as asking how of anything. Please let me know “why” of the above.

      ———Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.——–

      Useless claims do not deserve even ordinary response or evidence.

      ——-I think when you say the world is a “sane” place you are trying to argue that because the cosmos functions (at all) that something has to maintain it?——

      Can you convince someone why shouldn’t he get sexually attracted towards his mother?

      ——-That’s a rehashing of the complexity argument for intelligent design, but in reality things would be much more simple if they were designed intelligently, not more complex.—–

      Simple and complex are relative terms, they are not absolute. Complex to you may be simple for me or vice versa. In short if you can write the equations of motion of any “randomly” generated earth and sun, I would say that randomness is nothing but the synonym of ORDERED.

  36. Param says

    The perception of reality of humans is restricted to their five senses which are further stunted when observing nature. For example, we cannot hear any sound lower than 20Hz or those above 20kHz. We can only see the world within the light wavelength range of 300nm to 700nm and we are blinded in the infrared or UV spectrum. The very purpose of having complex electron microscopes and all the sophisticated telescopes is an attempt to broaden our visual range. Being ourselves as finite creatures we delve ourselves in comprehending the infinite, (for which “meaningless” is a synonym in Mathematics) which is the creation and sustenance of this universe. Just because I cannot perceive electromagnetic radiation doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. In the same breath, just because I don’t perceive or understand the cause of everything divine around me from living, communicating, helping, caring, trusting, loving and sustaining the very existence of the universe doesnt give me enough ground to deny the creator.

    From life’s inception it is incorrect to say that we have “created” the luxuries and commodities that make our lives better. All we have done is use our surrounding to “assemble” something that we call our invention or discovery. We should appreciate this basic difference of choice between us and everything that was actually “created” which would then probably make us less arrogant.

  37. Aditya Kumar says

    Dear Agniveer,
    I came to your site accidentally, your logic r flawed and reasoning biased heavily on afterlife and souls. I had the privileged of being born as aryasamanji , being minority in Hindus, I was always ridiculed,this led to study of Geeta, Budhhism, koran etc on this . Vedas r also full of errors n contradictions like all books. they have nothing extraordinarily special, but hymens of singing/flattery to God/Gods and begging material wealth.They r excellent when they try to explain the birth of gods and universe. your statement newton and Einstein were atheist r also wrong, on the contrary Newton got his due share of fame ,cause he never conflicted the church.

    Coming to current topic, of afterlife, there is no such afterlife, this concept has been introduced to maintain order in world.
    Regarding your view to repulsion to death, it is not the fear of death but it is the fear of UNKNOWN that human brain fears most, and this search of UNKNOWN factor has led to so many religion and texts.

    I would not like to discuss/quote the laws of physics and maths and synergy here, every reader is familiar with them.
    Religions all over the world r of view that life begins ,when 5 element + 6th element combine we have life, they all talk effusively about this 6th element. My view is that life is nothing but perfect synergy/ synchronization of law of material world and this 6th element is created when all conditions r perfect, for example, we can’t alive a person( read bring back life force) whose body is badly damaged/mutilated in accident or otherwise, no matter how much we pray, so we can say this 6th matter is not divine, it is present as long as body is healthy( read chemical reaction)

    vedas states after death soul is assimilated in all beings and then rains again, so we can say soul/Atman as a material property of nature like electricity/magnetism,
    Regarding your repulsion to death, if you closely study the natural laws, you will find that law of attractions outnumbers the law of repulsion i.e. all…

    • Indian Agnostic says

      Namaste Aditya Kumar,

      I am sorry to say that your conclusions about vedas and life are hurried and not correct even from an empirical(scientific) perspective :(

      1) for example you treat consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of matter ..but science does not (and cannot yet) claim so!
      the example of consciousness creating matter is everywhere around ..have you seen a butterfly? when a caterpillar commits suicide is clinically dead (all it’s body is dissolved into a chemical soup!)..but lo and behold ..a completely new creature is born out of this suicide ..the butterfly !
      so my friend ..while we have LIVE examples of consciousness creating matter ..we have NO example of matter creating consciousness..this is your 6th element :)

      2) Vedas contain apara and para vidya .Please google Athiratram vedic ritual and see for yourself that what you call “singing/flattery to God/Gods and begging” …is far more profound than what you blindly believe .Wherever this ritual is performed the environment is purified ..not for a day ..but for DECADES !!
      This is just one of the many repeatable experiments of Vedas which bring empirical benefits that can be verified and tested (indeed this ritual is being studied by scientists as we speak)
      So my friend , your charge against the vedas also comes from an ignorance these facts .I hope you would shun your griffith and maxmuller translations and find a real Vedic who could teach you the real purport and use of vedic hymns

      3) Do you know what the current understanding of science is regarding the reality of the things?? …it’s high time that you do !
      at a crucial junction where science is looking towards vedas are looking away ..what an irony :(

  38. Aditya Kumar says

    that is why indians stress lot on detachment from worldly affairs to get rid of material nature of law of world.

    any way atman remains/created only in healthy body only. so their is no afterlife, and this fact does not makes me to do crime or cheat anybody.God can not stop a person from commiting crime nor he can stop a person from charity. it is the law of kamma in accord with law of nature that hold true.

    I am indebted to all rishis and sages and teachers for bringing me to this stage gradually from concept heavens and hell to present state where i can say there is no after life and I would not stoop low to live forever or will try to enjoy the fruits at any cost;
    AUM ,jai india


    • Raja says

      1. One cannot take you seriously. You are just a bunch of atoms colliding and making noise. Merely a more sophisticated union of atoms that result in raindrops making sound and modern art in mud.

      2. You may not stoop low because your atoms are combined in that manner, given the way big band happened and then the sub-atomic particles tracing definite paths. But my set of atoms want to chop and fry you because the atoms of my brain say that atoms of my tongue will find your tasty. So there is nothing wrong in eating you up. After all it is beyond me, it all was decided in big bang. Also it is only as much wrong as drinking a glass of water or jumping in the mud modern art created by raindrops as described above.

      3. By the way, who is this ‘I’ you are referring to who is indebted to Rishis? Who is saying there is no afterlife? Who wants to detach and get rid of material law of world? You fool, you yourself are the material. How can you get rid of material nature? And look who is thinking all this bull-shit – a set of randomly colliding atoms destined to talk this bull-shit as per laws of motion and energy billions of years ago during big bang!

      You did not even review the arguments of the article and started talking nonsense. You touched not a single point of the article. And you talk as if you have been in afterlife, witnessed it and then confirming that it does not exist. On contrary, the article provides rational arguments that are difficult to refute. But you talk like this because you think you are a great philosopher who discovered this great truth after years of efforts. And now all that is shattered in one article! It hurts your ego. You are programmed to pretend that you are greatest intellectual in matters of life and death. And even if you refuse this allegation (to pretend as rational among public) that does not matter. After all you are just a set of atoms colliding and generating bull-shit! And all that was decided during big-bang.

      Also, I wonder what great would you achieve my coming…

  39. Raja says

    Also, I wonder what great would you achieve by coming to this great conclusion! You put so much efforts in mastering this detachment. And death will detach you or any other person in any case! You are like a foolish mathematician who is trying to discover a big number that when multiplied with zero results in zero! But that is not your fault. You are just “Aditya Atoms Collision Union”. You don’t even represent any atom, you fool. Because all you atoms also recycle away as you eat, drink, grow and excrete. You represent only the collisions! It is natural that collisions of such highly random nature that even Quantum Physics cannot measure reasonably well, are bound to create garbage in all probability. But again not your fault. Had the Big Bang been even trillionth of trillionth of second slower, you would have been more sensible.

  40. says

    Aditya ji..
    Lets keep aside the views of Agniveer for some time. And discuss, your view. You said, soul resides only in healthy body. When the body is damaged, we can not put the soul in the same body again. Secondly you said, the 6th element i.e. the soul is there in the nature and not divine.

    My first doubt is regarding the word “divine”. What does this mean ?
    My second question is regarding, the conclusion that you reached. Yes I agree, that we cant put the soul in a damaged body again. But this is because of the law of nature. How this denies re-birth ?

  41. heihachi says

    hi sid,

    i went through the link you gave and its interesting to note that although you gave the example of something coming from nothing, that experiment still doesnt explain how a light bulb can generate the enrgy to go about producing itself from nothing?

    perhaps my question you misunderstood. i was trying to guide you to understand that something as complicated as this life and this universe cannot be created at random by nothingness and without careful and meticulous planning (can it???) life as we know it comes from life. life does not come from empty vacuums. Even the source behind vacuums is thought to be dark energy.

    sid says:
    about random mutations, YES, they are in fact a truth, and even the time scale you mentioned is what sentient beings have taken to reach their complex forms as we observe them now.

    again, how does this relate to the light bulb example? can that produce itself by itself? if not why not?

  42. says

    i say that you are not read the noble quran even it speak abou the alian in 14 hundrud years a go the there is 1000 of verss speras about scince and the modern scince confim that this is true and i want tell you like a muslim pleas stedy the noble quran and if you have any dawt of thinking that this is not god word pleas write one chapter similar to it not the same and if you can you can tell the muslim this is not the word of allah and allah give this chaleng the people like you allah say that you can not do this even the saten help you can not do this and if you do this you will fell and wet the punishment of the hell?

  43. says

    To all Atheistic idiots,

    Richard Dawkins refer to himself as an African, meaning after monkeys it was the Africans, but since no other monkey evolved since and more time has gone, why are there still people of colour? Can he explain, by his evidence, how he has progressed to Caucasian leaving so many behind?

    “Nothing in this world can be produced without proper application.” Mimansa”
    “Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.” Vaisheshika
    “Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.” Niyaya
    “Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga
    “Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms.” Sankhaya
    “Nothing can be made without a Maker.” Vedanta

    This shows that the creation of the world or anything created even by man can never come into being without these six causes.

    “We have thus little respect for a theory such as Darwin which propounds that human species are a development of an inferior animal nature. For, if we were to accept this, we would be at a loss to trace the origin of human language and the possession of Divine knowledge, which are peculiar to mankind only, and which are not self-acquired, but can only be learnt from others.”

  44. Rajesh Raushan says

    I like Hawking – not because his scientific achievements but because he is a great thinker. Why you guys are so keen in opposing him. If he says yes – he is right and your are with him or else he is wrong and you go explaining why he not such a great scientists.
    He must have spent a lot of time trying to find-out something – some evidence of GOD or after-life. Failing to do so he is giving his view which can be right or wrong or anything in between.
    You want everyone to believe in GOD and afterlife and you will also tell that physically we can’t see god or we can’t remember things of our previous life. Many people can agree – it’s a matter of realization and for them that is enough a proof. Some people may not get convinced with that idea. If there is afterlife then what we are looking for in that? We are not doing crime just because there will be implication on our after-life – come-on this is not the reason. we don’t do because that’s what we are – we don’t enjoy doing that – that is morally wrong – not good in overall – we know if same thing done to us we will not feel good so that’s not something to be done by anybody – a rule is getting created here for humankind.
    This is how gradually a religion can come-up.
    Now please don’t tell that whatever we don’t do is done by GOD like the feeling – the enjoyment – the senses of right and wrong are proof of GOD.
    We all can see the universe we are living in in bound by some universal law – But some people may not agree that those law is governed by god and he can show-up with a physical figure with two hands one head and two legs. The law prevails itself – there might not be somebody doing all this. Whether GOD is here or not – whether we will have afterlife or not; the good will remain good and bad will remain bad. Religion teaches ways of life – not for one but for everyone. It may not need a supreme one to govern it.

    • Krishnarao says

      Rajesh Raushan,

      Many scientists in the West do not agree with everything hawking said. Blind faith in a scientist is also destructive.


  45. says

    Stephen Hawking says there is no afterlife, there is no heavens,it is a fairy story = looks true. Science deals mainly with matter in universe only and not beyond it. God is not matter, so it is beyond science. Matter is recognised by 5 senses we have. God is not recognised by these senses. So how a scientist can say on HIM..
    Snience can merely recognise Anand (not happiness or pleasure) generated out of meditation, but cannot say that Anand for ever is not God. Further Anand is not a matter and it is a feeling blissed by God. Scientists are all covered by their respective religious faiths/principles. However, Veda or God is not covered by any religion or faith. It is purely humanised. Before think on God, may be scientist or ehoever may be, should know, who made us, provide everything on earth/universe, who controls and destroys,etc. There must be somebody for these, say God alone. Without His bliss, we cannot know even Him what about seeing. When He is not a matter where from you got a particle of Him and claim that we caught hold of a particle of Him. Be fearless, neutral and truth finding before know/pursuit God and life after death.

Please read "Comment Policy" and read or post only if you completely agree with it. Comments above 2000 characters will be moderated. You can share your views here and selected ones will be replied directly by founder Sri Sanjeev Agniveer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>