Today, the logical analysis is not only sharp but also steady due to experimental verification of every concept. The receiving nature of the people is quite stable due to the scientific analysis. People are not fast in applying the theoretical tautology to arrive at hasty conclusions. In view of the stability of the phase of intelligence, the projection of the real unimaginable nature of God will not face the danger of non-existence. The scientist may not believe any miracle and may say that nothing is unimaginable. But the scientist must accept the unimaginable boundary of the universe.
The scientist may argue like this:- “When the universe is imaginable made of imaginable cosmic energy as the fundamental cause, how can you say that the boundary of the universe is unimaginable? Just like the ocean is water, the boundary of the ocean must be also be the same water. Hence, the boundary of the imaginable universe must be also imaginable”. This type of argument is not acceptable if you analyze the subtle point of the boundary. When you reach the edge of the ocean and stand on it, you must find water on one side and the land, which is not water on the other side. The knowledge of both water and land is necessary to fix the boundary of the ocean. Land is not water. If land is also water, then the boundary of the ocean is not achieved. Similarly, when you reach the boundary of the imaginable universe, you must perceive the imaginable nature of the universe on one side and the unimaginable nature on the other side. If the unimaginable nature is also imaginable, then the boundary of imaginable nature is not achieved.
When the unimaginable nature cannot be imagined by your intelligence, it means you have never reached the boundary of the imaginable universe. Unless you perceive both imaginable and unimaginable natures, the boundary of the imaginable nature is not achieved. Hence the boundary of the universe is always unimaginable from the other side. Some scientists say that the diameter of the universe is 200 billion light years.
Another scientist laughed at this by asking that if he travels all this diameter and reach the compound wall of universe, what is present beyond such compound wall? One scientist says that the universe is constantly expanding! This is again a laughable concept since it finally means that you can never achieve the boundary of the universe. Hence, by all means the scientist has to accept the existence of the unimaginable entity, which is the other side of the boundary of the universe. It is not the boundary if the other side is not achieved. The scientist has stable and steady intelligence to realize the truth in this argument unlike a theoretical ancient tautologist. The unimaginable item, which is beyond the boundary of this imaginable universe is called as God.
When this universe is projected from God, you will touch God on reaching the edge of the universe. You can never touch God since He is unimaginable. It means that you can never reach the boundary of this universe. Today this fundamental concept is revealed due to confidence on the stable and steady analytical faculty of real scientists. Ofcourse, foolish conservative scientists also exist even today in small number and this is inevitable at any time. Moreover, today there is lot of demand for the revelation of this basic concept in view of the violent terrorism that arose from the differences between the religions.
I like this as an argument to make atheists do a double take... but isn't the purpose of religious/spiritual inquiry to define and understand the relationship of God with the individual? This argument gives God a real and valid place to dwell, but does little in terms of elaborating on the function of a god so distantly removed from life and daily experience. If by definition this God must also be accepted as unimaginable this further removes God... so that it seems in creating a winning scenario for the ontological argument... God has been rendered so removed as to have no potential relationship with humanity within the known universe. Is this the point? To achieve a paradoxical and somewhat pointless acknowledgement of God as fact? In many ways I prefer God as abstraction close at hand. If we are going to spend time imagining, discussing, shaping, and integrating a conception of God... isn't the point to then have a relationship with this conception?