Proving the Existence of the Necessary Existent

1. Proving the Existence of the Necessary Existent Part 2 – Inductive Arguments

2. Ayetul Kubra – The Supreme Sign A journey of tefekkur – contemplative reflection and thought Expounds the testimony of the Book of the Universe to the Necessary Existence of Allah An inductive, teleological argument

3. A comprehensive proof Ustad sees that all things in the universe point to the purposive action of the Creator of the those things, who created them to achieve certain ends We could well ask: Was the eye not purposely designed to enable vision? Were photons and the seven colours in light not designed for the purposes of illumination and the seeing of colours? Was food not purposely made to be tasted?

4. A comprehensive proof Don’t phenomena such as optics, audiology, taste and colour, point to One with the wisdom and power to create such things? Not a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument

5. A comprehensive proof All phenomena in the universe – described by sciences such physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, particle physics, cosmology, optics, audiology, mathematics, medicine and genomics, to name but a few – point to wisdom, purpose, art and mercy. In turn, these point to the actions, Names, attributes and necessary existence of the Creator of the universe, who possesses Wisdom, Will, Knowledge, Mercy, Power, Sentience and therefore Life.

6. An Inference to the Best Explanation Not an analogical An inference to the best explanation Competing hypotheses, in this case, Naturalism vs Theism, are evaluated Ustad posits that only theism can explain the evident teleology in the world Does science support his view?

7. Can Naturalism explain things? Materialist atheists have rushed to say that science (naturalism) can explain all phenomena Yet can naturalism ever show us the necessary andsufficient conditions for things? To show that Allah is not needed to explain even the simplest thing, they would need to show that the universe as a whole can exist without Allah

8. Scientific support Recent advances in genomics have shown that the amount of ‘specified information’ contained in the DNA of living organisms is “orders of magnitude greater” than previously thought, making the task of giving a naturalistic account of life exponentially more difficult (Meyer, 2009). Similarly, advances in astrophysics and cosmology have made it more and more difficult to see how phenomena in the universe could be explained without reference to God.

9. A Fine-Tuned Universe For the universe to be able to evolve and sustain stars, planets and life, and to even be able to exist for any substantial length of time, its initial conditions and fundamental constants must be ‘fine tuned’ to an incredibly high degree. How do atheists account for the relative strengths or values of physical forces, or for the values of the initial conditions of the universe, which make phenomena possible?

10. Ratio of electro-magnetic force to gravity Had the ratio of the electro-magnetic force to the force of gravity been different by even 1 part in 10 to power of 40 (1040), stable stars such as our Sun could never have formed. Thus life could never have evolved

11. Roughness parameter Had matter been distributed perfectly smoothly, galaxies, and hence life, could never have formed. But if matter had been distributed slightly more roughly, the universe would have either collapsed back in on itself early on or developed into a “vast sea of black holes” (Corey 2001, p.73).

12. Roughness parameter This roughness parameter might have taken on any one of an infinite range of values. Yet it took on the one and only value that was required to enable a life-sustaining universe: 10 the power of negative 5 (10-5)!

13. Energy density of matter At Planck time (10-43 seconds after the Big Bang), the energy density of matter, hence the force of gravity, had to be just less than the force of the cosmic expansion. Had this value been any lower, even by 1 part in 10 to the power of 60 (1060), the universe would have collapsed back in on itself long before life could emerge.

14. Initial conditions The initial boundary conditions of the universe also need to be fine-tuned – not just the physical forces These initial conditions could realistically have taken on any one of a massive number of different values. Yet they took on the exact values required to permit a long-lived, life-sustaining universe.

15. Theism thus supported The atheist can no longer take ‘the laws of nature’ for granted, thinking they somehow explain away the order and purpose in the universe. The atheist must now explain how the universe came to be fine-tuned without a Fine-Tuner. So Said Nursi would seem to be right in his view that the universe and all things in it point to purpose, and hence to the wisdom of an All-Wise One.

16. Counter arguments1 – The Multiverse idea Increasing the probabilistic resources “The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation. But is the multiple universe hypothesis as plausible as the design hypothesis? (Craig, 2011)

17. Counter arguments1 – The Multiverse idea We have no way of knowing whether other universe actually exist, thus the idea is merely ad hoc conjecture – serving no purpose but to avoid the obvious theistic implications of a fine-tuned universe. M-theory (string theory) also requires fine-tuning

18. Counter arguments1 – The Multiverse idea The odds of the fine-tuning of our universe being due to chance alone are 1 in 1010(123) Yet the probability of other things, such as a smaller universe, is vastly higher - 1010(60)

19. Counter arguments1 – The Multiverse idea Thus we should be observing a much different universe Even unlikely events like “horses popping into and out of existence” are far more probable than our fine-tuned universe forming by chance (Craig, 2011). Yet we don’t see those types of events occur.

20. The Weak Anthropic Principle Atheists say: “We should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe fit for human life, since if it weren’t fit for human life, we wouldn’t be here to argue the point!” John Leslie’s 100 marksmen though experiment deals with this response Had they not missed, you wouldn’t be around to tell the story. Yet this does nothing to mitigate your surprise that they did in fact miss. Their missing cries out for explanation. And so does the fine-tuning of the universe.

21. Exotic Life The fine-tuning argument only shows that carbon-based life would be impossible if the variables were different. But we don’t know whether after types of life, such as silicone-based life, might be possible under different conditions Science shows that even things such as stars and galaxies would be impossible if the conditions were altered.

22. Exotic Life So it’s for the non-theist to show what kind of life could emerge in the absence of things as essential to life as stars. Appeals to unknown things can never serve as the better explanation A more plausible, positive argument needs to be made.

23. Exotic Life Even if they could show that other sorts of life were possible, the current state of affairs would still stand in need of explanation Unless it could be shown that life could emerge under a very wide set of different conditions Otherwise, atheists merely reaffirm the theist’s position that life, whatever its form, always requires a very fine-tuned universe to emerge

24. Conclusion The universe points clearly to design. Design points clearly to the wisdom, power and will of an All Wise, All-Powerful Creator of the universe.

25. Conclusion Attempts to explain away the evident design in the universe by appealing to ‘nature’ fail, for nature too requires an explanation for the way it is. For nature is exquisitely fine-tuned for not just life, but stars, galaxies and other phenomena. This fine-tuning is best explained by reference to the deliberate action of the Creator of the universe – Allah.

26. Conclusion “The imaginary and insubstantial thing that Naturalists call nature, if it has an external reality, can at the very most be work of art; it cannot be the Artist. It is an embroidery, and cannot be the Embroiderer. It is a set of decrees; it cannot be the Issuer of the decrees. It is a body of the laws of creation, and cannot be the Lawgiver. It is but a created screen to the dignity of Allah, and cannot be the Creator. It is passive and created, and cannot be a Creative Maker. It is a law, not a power, and cannot possess power. It is the recipient, and cannot be the source.” (Nursi 2009, p.244)