> Muslim Response An Eternal Universe? Nah, not According to Modern Science.

[Qatada]

Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

An Eternal Universe? Nah,not According to Modern Science.



Atheist Question #1;

This universe does astound our small minds, petty by-products of chance life; but is there any part of that we can actually say "that is so amazing only a creator could have caused it?"



Muslim Answer #1:

Yes most definitly, some examples:

1) rate of expansion after big bang

“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).

2) gravity :

“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

Atheist Question #2 - Multiverse Theory:

Theatheist may claimthat; A MultiVerse was existant 'forever' and had no beginning. So imagine a bunch of lots of universes together = a Multiverse.

And within that Multiverse, many 'other universes' were expanding (like the Big Bang), so they collided into each other - causing a side Big Bang of energy - which would cause this universe to come into existence, and start expanding.


So atheists are saying that the universe wasn't really created, instead, it began from a group of other Universes colliding together, providing energy for a new Big Bang = this universe.

*This is known as the Branes or String theory.



Muslim Answer #2:

the multiverse argument just shifts the question as to how it [the multiverse] all originated in the first place;

Whether or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. The multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note that there's a diffrence between believing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite God. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entropy as an infinite universe (i.e. the amount of useful energy of eternal big bangs, - expansion after contraction - continuously, would be reduced to 0, so needing a starting point once again at some time). That is because the multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces [meaning a Closed System contains a Limited amount of Energy]

What is being said is;

1) The Multiverse idea just shifts the question to;How did the Multiverse begin, instead of the question; how did the universe begin?


2) If the atheist says the multiverse was 'forever without a beginning', then a rule called Entropy* argues against an 'eternal/forever' multiverse.

What is Entropy: *Even if "open and close" [expansion/contraction] universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be get energy from "nothing".

Eternal Big Bangs couldn't occur eternally because they would soon run out of useful energy (because after 'each' big bang there is less useful energy remaining) - finally having no useful energy to cause big bangs - meaning that there has to be a 'first cause' for it all over again.

So atheists cant say the universe has had eternal big bangs and contractions without a first cause. We say the causer of all things is Allah who depends on no-one and is the Powerful. [al Qawiy]


In Detail:

Slide 13: Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every \"opening\" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare

Atheist Argument #3 against Entropy;

But Energy never gets destroyed, energy just changes state like Einstein said.


Muslim Answer #3;

Yes, that might be the case. However, we are talking about 'Useful Energy' which allows future Big Bangs to occur. After a certain amount of Big Bangs, the amount of Useful Energy will be decreased everytime, and the only energy that will remain is Heat (the energy used for the Big Bangs had changed into heat, and heat is not useful in creating future Big Bangs for other newer universes [since Kinetic and Potential Energy is needed for that].) This heat cannot do anything since it is irreversible energy (so it can't be useful energy for future Big Bangs.)


So in effect, the universe cannot be eternal/forever. If it was forever, maximum Entropy would have already been reached an eternity ago, so there wouldn't be any useful energy to allow this present universe to come into existence!

The only other solution would be for a new Provider of Useful Energy to start the whole process once again. And once these Big Bang's ran out of useful energy [Maximum Entropy reached], a Provider of New useful Energy would be needed once again repeatedly each time.


The atheist might say that some energy which may seem 'irreversible' can be changed into useful energy through manipulation. But to change its state into useful energy through manipulation would require further energy for its transformation, and there is a lack of this energy already. So this wouldn't be possible.


So a multiverse cannot survive on its own forever, rather it needs a Provider of Useful Energy each time it runs out, based on the scientific rule of Entropy.

Atheist Question #4:

Atheist; How can you apply the rules of our universe, to the laws of other universes and the Multiverse? The physics of our universe might be different to the multiverse?


Muslim Answer #4:

The multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces as ours. [So the rules are the same for the universe and multiverse according to the Multiverse theory.]

If the atheist disagrees, he needs to explain what the alternative physical laws are of the other universe/multiverse, and he can't do this because science has not proven or explained what their physical laws are [infact it hasn't even discovered those other universes, since the whole multiverse theory is a hypothesis (educated guess)].

So the argument still stands, our current state of the universe denies the possibility of time dating back infinitly. So similarly, the idea of an infinite multiverse going an eternity back in time is also denied, according to modern day scientific standards.

Atheist Question #5:

Atheist; "the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it."

So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-antropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.




Atheist; "He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of." (hence he's more complicated than the idea of an eternal universe).


answer:
I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it accounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.

I realize that if I claim "God is the solution to the question of existence", then you could reply: but who created God? My reply in term would be, God is not created, he is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering entropy. A god which is time-less on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic. Therefore to some extent I find it persuasive.


[Meaning: since Intelligent Design 'idea' is the most plausible explanation (to me) based on my understanding of science and probabilities of nature doing all these acts in a synchronised way), then the multiverse hypothesis 'idea' is even more complex in comparison since it defies logic and relies on ALOT of coincidences.]

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Slight corerction, in your article you say:

Theatheist may claimthat; A MultiVerse was existant 'forever' and had no beginning. So imagine a bunch of lots of universes together = a Multiverse.

And within that Multiverse, many 'other universes' were expanding (like the Big Bang), so they collided into each other - causing a side Big Bang of energy - which would cause this universe to come into existence, and start expanding.


So atheists are saying that the universe wasn't really created, instead, it began from a group of other Universes colliding together, providing energy for a new Big Bang = this universe.

and then footmark:

*This is known as the Branes or String theory.

However the quoted part is not string theory. String theory is a theory about the shape of the most fundamental particles. String theory does suggest that our universe is inside a membrane, but it leaves open whether or not that membrane is part of a multi-verse or not. Furthermore, it defenitly leaves open whether or not big bang was the result of two such membranes banging together.
In other words, the above is merely speculation build from string-theory, but it is not a part of it.
That also means that this concept is not validated by the validity of string theory or M-theory or branes-theory itself.

[Qatada]

Asalaam alaikum warahmatulah wabarakatuh

A Universe/s Regressing back Infinitely is illogical. How?


Imagine you're standing in a line, with infinite amount of people standing ahead of you.

Will you ever get your turn?


The same way this universe would never get its chance to come into existence, if infinite universes were before it.


The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So instead we affirm that God is One, the Originator, without being created. And this does not defy logic, since God by definition is infinite.

[Sensationnz]

Jazakallah khyrun, this is what i was looking for(haven't read it yet) . Also if atheist ask "Who created God"? A muslim or islamic answer would be He is Everlasting/Eternal, as it has been answered.. But the atheist might say the universe is eternal and was always there, so you can play the game both ways.

Brother Fatah , in a short summary how can you reply to this claim, and disprove it.

Im going to read bro Qatadah's article inshallah when i get my laptop fixed. ( its hard to read from iphone).

wsallam

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

Jazakallah khyrun, this is what i was looking for(haven't read it yet) . Also if atheist ask "Who created God"? A muslim or islamic answer would be He is Everlasting/Eternal, as it has been answered.. But the atheist might say the universe is eternal and was always there, so you can play the game both ways.

Assalamu 'Alaikum bruh, hope uve been well inshAllah :)

in a short summary how can you reply to this claim, and disprove it.

As brother Qatadah above has established that infinity cannot exist in this Universe, therefore the concept of an eternal Universe is absurd, due to the logical difficulties it pose. However, Allah is outside the bindings of the laws of this Universe. Therefore we can say Allah is eternal and still claim this statement is valid, since it would not be illogical to say so, because the laws of this Universe do not apply to Allah.

In short: Infinity is an absurdity because it is not a real number and therefore it cannot exist in the context of this Universe. However since Allah is not a part of this Universe, the laws of philosophy and science do not necessarily hold true in His case. Therefore it would be perfectly logical for a theist to claim God is eternal, but when an atheist says this Universe is eternal, he is assuming the existence of infinity in this Universe (which is absurd), and hence this claim is illogical.

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

Ive written an article on Kalam Cosmological Argument, here are the parts on infinity(Ill omit the information already available in here). Much of the article is the contribution of Brother Abdul Fattah.

Moving on to the second premise i.e. the Universe had a beginning of its existence is not all that hard to prove. Philosophically speaking, any parallel claim other than this premise is the Universe DIDNT have a beginning of its existence. However, that gives us a bunch of philosophical and scientific problems. Such as;

a)If we were to assume that this Universe had no beginning then we have to assume that the history of time is infinite, i.e. time is beginningless as well. However that gives us the problem of the existence of infinity, and we know infinity cannot exist in reality, because its contradictory to the concept of “number” to begin with. Numbers or Quantities would denote that there are limits and restrictions, i.e. “I have 5 apples” I have a limited number of apples. However infinity says that there ARE no limits. Anyone can see the contradiction already. Therefore infinity cannot exist as a number.
b)Point number two is the obvious mathematical paradoxes we end up with when we consider the “infinite” to be a number, i.e. “finite”. For instance, theonly way we can achieve infinite by means of addition is to add infinite with a finite. infinity+1=infinity. Therefore Infinity-Infinity equals one. This goes against the attributes of a Real Number.

Because we know from the Existence of Inverse that
a+(-a)=0
However, Infinity+(-infinity)=n

So according to the axioms of a Real number, infinity cannot exist.

c)Accepting the existence of infinity would bring normal day-to-day paradoxes as well. Its really not worth illustrating them here since they are all based on the first point I raised i.e. Infinity has no limits and all numbers have limits therefore infinity is not a number, rather a concept.

[Hassan_Abd_Allah]

Also, the following might help brother sunnikid:

Another important point to note here is, an “Uncaused Cause to Cause the Universe” is pretty much the only plausible explanation which would account for its existence. Because if we say that the Cause would need to be subject to the Law of Causality, then it would only result in the infinite regress. Therefore the only logical and plausible explanation here is, God does not have a Cause. This doesnt pose any contradiction either, since God is not bound by Human ration. The Universe, however, is. So here we see two parallel assumptions to account for the existence of the Universe:
1. The universe is infinite and was not caused.
2. The Universe was Caused and the Cause is infinite.

Point 1 poses a contradiction, point 2 doesnt. So the logical conclusion would be that an infinite God exists.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Aselam aleykum

Originally Posted by Hassan_Abd_Allah

Allah is outside the bindings of the laws of this Universe. Therefore we can say Allah is eternal and still claim this statement is valid, since it would not be illogical to say so, because the laws of this Universe do not apply to Allah.

I would argue even a step further.
We know that Allah subhana wa ta'ala had no beginning. However this can be interpreted in two ways:

1) Allah is infinite inside time
2) Allah is above time, as in not contained within the dimension of time.

If time itself is also a part of our universe then since Allah subhana wa ta'la created the universe, he also created time. And If Allah subhana wa ta'ala created time, he himself must be "outside" of time.
And I have no knowledge on the qualities of Allah, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.