The British physicist Paul Davies has an interesting book titled The Goldilocks Enigma. The book attempts to uncover a curious issue pertaining to the nature of the universe that we live in, in terms of how it is perfectly suitable and balanced for us, as if it were a Goldilocks universe. As is known to anyone familiar with the term, this title is borrowed from a famous and popular children’s story, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In summary, a girl by the name of Goldilocks finds a bear house in the forest. Each bear has its own food, chair, and bed. Sampling each, Goldilocks finds that two of the three (belonging to the father and mother) are not suitable for her because they are too hot and too cold (food), too high or too low (chairs), and too hard or too soft (beds). The only one she finds suitable for herself are the ones belonging to the small bear. The similitude here is that the universe in which we live has been made in a masterful manner: It has been fine-tuned to such a great degree that, had it been any other way, it would not have been able to support life. From this, the teleological argument takes shape. The argument has been used right across the religious spectrum and in all eras and geographies. For example, Rāzī said, Fiṭrah testifies that the appearance of a house inscribed with unusual inscriptions and built in a finely balanced manner with wisdom and benefit cannot be possible without a knowledgeable scribe and a prudent builder. It is known that the signs of wisdom in the upper and lower worlds are far more than the manifestations of wisdom in that small house. Given that the original fiṭrah is a testament to the inscription needing a scribe, and the building needing a builder, this testament would be all the more so in the case of this entire world needing a maker that acts with choice and wisdom.243

Ibn al-Qayyim  said, Allah  predisposed His servants – and even animals – to take a liking to placing everything in its rightful place, to carry things out at their appropriate moment, and to acquire things in the desired manner. He also predisposed them to dislike the opposite and to go against the aforementioned methods. The first is indicative of the perfection, knowledge, power, and proficiency of the doer; its opposite is indicative of his own deficiency and the deficiency of his knowledge, power, and expertise. This is the fiṭrah that people simply cannot depart from. It is known that the one who predisposed them like this and placed this capacity in them would be worthier of these praiseworthy traits than they are. Allah  places things in their rightful place. He makes them unique by assigning to them attributes, shapes, configurations, and sizes in a manner that He knows better than anyone else. He brings them out into the open – and that too at the only time suitable for them. One who possesses sound analysis and upright thought, and contemplates as one should do so, would testify to that in what he sees and knows. He would use what he witnesses in evidence for what is concealed. Everything is from the making of the Wise, the Omniscient. To demonstrate this, it suffices to know the wisdom behind creating animals, their limbs, attributes, configurations, the benefit that can be derived from them, and that they absolutely represent the wisdom that is desired in them. Allah  recommended His servants to do this: “…as there are within yourselves. Can you not see?”244; and “Do they not ever reflect on camels – how they were masterfully created?...”245 In a similar fashion, if one properly contemplates and observes all of His upper and lower creations and everything in between, he will find it all to be designed and enveloped in great wisdom. He would be able to read the wisdom etched into them and proclaim: “This is the making of the Omniscient and the Wise, and it is the decree of the Almighty and the Omniscient. If minds can find anything more suitable than this, they should recommend it; if they see anything more beautiful than it, they should bring it forth and showcase it. That is the making of ‘the One Who created seven heavens, one above the other. You will never see any imperfection in the creation of the Most Compassionate. So look again: do you see any flaws?’”246 One who observes this world and contemplates it as it rightly should would know that its Creator masterfully designed it and fortified it. When he ponders over it, he would find it to be like a house in which all its installations are prepared. The sky is raised like a roof, the Earth is stretched out like a carpet, the stars are clustered like lamps, and welfare is stored therein like treasures. Everything in it is designed for something it is suited for. Man is like the owner who was made entitled to it. The various types of flora have been prepared for his purposes. Different animals are utilised to his advantage. Some of them are only for milking, siring, and nourishment; some are only for riding and transportation; others are for beauty and adornment; and others are for all of these, such as camels – their stomachs are storage containers for drink, food, medicine, and cure. There is a lesson in them for those who want to observe and signs for those who are discerning. And within the avian species – with all of its variety, shapes, colours, population numbers, the advantages they afford, their songs, with their wings outspread and folded in, and with their migration and settlement patterns – there is a great lesson and clear indicator to the wisdom of the Creator, the Omniscient.’

Ibn Rushd  excellently phrased this argument. He said, As for the method the religion pursued in edifying the masses on the world being from the making of Allah , note that when the verses carrying this meaning are contemplated, this method can be found to be one of providence. It is one way that we have stated is indicative of the existence of the Creator . Furthermore, when a man looks at a perceptible item and finds it to be fashioned into a specific shape, size, and configuration, and that all of these are aligned to the benefit and end goal one would expect from it (such that he would have to admit that this benefit would not have been found if it was fashioned into any other shape, configuration, or quantity), he would be convinced that this thing has a maker who made it. This is why its shape, configuration, and size are aligned to its benefit. It is also why it would not be possible for all these things to have just coincidentally converged for that benefit. For example, when a person sees a stone on the ground, and he finds it to be shaped in a way that makes it fit to be sat on, and he likewise finds its configuration and size to be as such, he would know that this stone was fashioned into a chair by a maker who configured and shaped it in that place. As for when he does not see this sort of arrangement for sitting, he would be certain that the stone’s appearance in this place and manner was coincidental, without any person having placed it there. The same is applicable to the entire world. Man can look therein and see the Sun, the Moon, and the stars – which are the cause of the four seasons, night and day, rain, water, wind, sections on Earth becoming inhabited with people and terrestrial animals being found therein – and that water is acclimatised for aquatic creatures, and the air made suitable for flying creatures. He can see that if any of these forms and structures are disturbed, the creations present here would all be disrupted. He would therefore be certain that it would not be possible that all segments of the world just coincidentally converged for the sake of man, animal, and flora; rather, that was by the design of someone who willed this. That would be Allah . Man would also know with all conviction that the world was constructed, because he would instinctively know that it is impossible to find such convergence out of sheer coincidence without any maker. This type of evidence is decisive and simple, as is obvious from what we have written here. Its basis lies on two principles that everybody acknowledges. One is that the world, along with all its constituent parts, is aligned to the existence of man and all animals that live here. The second is that anything – along with all its constituent parts – that is aligned to a single act and a singular goal must be considered made. These two principles obviously result in this: The world is made, and it has a maker. The argument from providence denotes both of these points simultaneously. This is why it is the most esteemed of arguments for the existence of the Maker.’248

One of the most famed and widespread passages for this argument in the Western space is the fascinating analogy by William Paley in his book Natural Theology: ‘In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone?’249

The answer is obvious. The complex composition a watch contains instinctively reveals the existence of its maker. Paley wanted to draw an analogy for the universe from the watch, which necessitates the existence of a watchmaker. It is from here that this example has become famously known as the ‘watchmaker analogy’, as a metaphor for the world needing a Wise, Omniscient Maker.

The composition of this argument is similar to the composition of the argument from creation in that it also relies on: a) sensory and perceptible data, and b) innate and instinctive concepts. It is what gives the argument its strength. This argument is easy to comprehend and conceptualise – it has no difficulty to it. For example, when a person looks at the Grand Canyon, which is the steep sided canyon found in Arizona, and then he compares this to Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, where a colossal sculpture of four American presidents is carved into the granite face of the mountain, or other man-made sculptures and carvings, he would perceive that there is an obvious distinction to be made. Although it is understandable that the former was caused by wind and river erosion, he may not be able to believe the same are capable of the latter. Even though he would not have seen them being carved and sculptured in person, he would most certainly know that there were people who did this. If you contemplate on this point further and try to identify the reason for this distinction, it would simply be down to the nature of the composition and complexity of the structure that would make man made design to be more plausible. This explains why this argument is so widespread in its usage to prove the existence of Allah. Like its predecessor, it is one of the most used arguments in religious and philosophical circles, and it makes the creation the subject matter, where reasoning and rational concepts are applied to them. Whereas the argument from creation is leveraged to prove that there must be a creator for the creation, this argument leverages the finely-tuned nature of the creation, which suggests there is a Wise, Omniscient Creator. The first argument draws its reasoning from the actual moment of creation; this argument draws its reasoning after creation comes into existence. The latter also stands out insofar as it introduces further attributes of the Creator, such as His perfect power, will, knowledge, wisdom, and others.

As this argument is used extensively, there have been various terms to describe it, though they all refer to the same meaning: argument from systemisation; argument from fine-tuning; argument from design (teleological argument); argument from providence; argument from purpose; and argument from planning.

Looking at revelation, one can find many usages of this argument as evidence to assist servants in revealing the greatness of the Lord  and His perfect knowledge, power, and wisdom. It stimulates man’s innate predisposition, that invites him to ascribe these manifestations of masterful construction to a Wise and Willing Doer. Read, for example, the following statements of Allah : • ‘To those who disbelieve in the Hereafter belong all evil qualities, whereas to Allah belong the finest attributes. And He is the Almighty, All-Wise.’250

• ‘It is Allah Who has raised the heavens without pillars – as you can see – then established Himself on the Throne. He has subjected the Sun and the Moon, each orbiting for an appointed term. He conducts the whole affair. He makes the signs clear so that you may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.’251

Though these verses are in the context of proving why the Lord  alone is worthy of worship – the proof being that the polytheists affirmed that He  is alone in absolute Lordship252 – they also necessarily imply that Allah exists. The fact is that the verses that can be presented in this regard are too numerous to be all listed.253 They are the verses that instruct servants to animate their powers of contemplation to ponder over the creation of the heavens and the Earth, the alternation of day and night, and the care given to the stars, clouds, winds, and all natural phenomena that are indicative of their Creator’s magnificence. This is in addition to those verses that speak of the wonders of Allah  in the animal and plant kingdoms. Man himself is not precluded from this process of contemplation – he is to observe and be the subject of observation at the same time. This is why Allah  said, ‘There are countless signs on Earth for those with sure faith.’254

Thus, one of the decisively established points in revelation is about celebrating the act of worship. This is achieved by reflecting on Allah’s creations, where one utilises the observation of them to believe in Allah  and His perfect attributes, and – as a result – to understand His worthiness of being the only worthy being for our servitude and worship.

There is no doubt that this argument has had a huge impact in the debate surrounding this issue. Such has been its sway that it has forced many atheists to acknowledge its power; in fact, it has caused some of their most famous figures to abandon atheism altogether. British philosopher Antony Flew, a famous ex atheist who had previously written a number of pro-atheism research papers and participated in numerous debates, ended up affirming the existence of a Wise, Omniscient Creator who made the universe. In his book There is a God, he expressed the deep impact this argument had on him personally, which led him to abandon atheism: ‘Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God. Developments in two areas in particular have led me to this conclusion. The first is the question of the origin of the laws of nature and the related insights of eminent modern scientists. The second is the question of the origin of life and reproduction.’255 This argument has forced even the most ardent of atheists into admitting that it is one of the best polemics offered by theists.

The teleological argument is based on the following propositions:

• First proposition: The universe we see and live in is masterfully made and consummate. The signs of care and providence therein are apparent.

• Second proposition: This consummate mastery suggests that there is a Wise, Omniscient Doer who created it in this manner.

• Conclusion: Allah  is the Wise, Omniscient Creator who created the universe.

The argument can also be based on an elimination process: list all the possibilities first, then remove the implausible ones. The statement here is that the universe is masterfully made and consummate. The possibilities for this being the case are three:

i. It appeared out of causal determinism. ii. It appeared out of coincidence.

iii. It appeared thanks to a Wise and Willing Creator.

By dispelling the first two options (which is to be discussed in more detail soon), the only option remaining is the third.

When a person thinks about the phenomenon of the mastery that exists in this universe and looks at its wonderful manifestations and imagery, he would see that this argument can be found abundantly across the world that we live in. The universe is laden with amazing scenes of beauty, grandeur, and mastery. The atheist physicist Steven Weinberg said, ‘I have to admit that sometimes nature seems more beautiful than strictly necessary.’256 Suffice it to say that, had this beauty and mastery not been in such abundance, we would have been in a totally different universe – and our world would have become a hard place to live.

This abundance of evidence for the masterful construction of the universe has had a huge influence in the teleological argument’s spread and the simplicity of its application. In fact, this abundance makes it suitable for a wide range of people, as people can differ vastly in terms of their ability to comprehend and contemplate the signs of intelligent design in the creation. This is also because people differ in terms of their cognitive experiences and knowledge. Whenever the intellectual tools inside a person are in greater abundance and maturity, he would gain a foresight into the subtlety of an immaculate construction that someone without these tools would not be able to acquire. The essence of this capability is found in all people so long as their fiṭrah and senses are uncorrupted. Beyond this, they can vary in terms of the extent they can exercise reflection – an act of worship – just as they can vary in terms of the impact that reflection can have on them. In traditional writings, in the pursuit of understanding the Creator  and to deepen one’s knowledge of Him and His perfect attributes, there is a faith-based response that speaks to reflection. One of the best writings on this is what Imam Ibn al-Qayyim  wrote in his books Shifā’ al-ʿAlīl and Miftāḥ Dār al-Saʿādah, where he extensively researched this issue in the search of Allah’s wisdom in many aspects of His creation, revealing His omniscience in the manifestation of masterful and consummate construction embedded in the creation. Abū Ḥāmid al Ghazālī  also has a treatise on the same issue, titled al-Ḥikmah fī Makhlūqāt Allah.

With the advancement in scientific knowledge, further manifestations of greatness, grandeur, and mastery in the creation of Allah  have opened up for us. This has left many minds astounded. Many contemporary scientific studies today have presented highly sophisticated tools of knowledge to us, underscoring the same meaning that we can ascertain when observing the manifestations of consummate construct in the universe – only in a more detailed and in-depth manner.

So that we are precise, what science can offer in this field is evidence for the propositions upon which the existence of Allah  can be rationally negotiated. Natural science, as per its current definition and the field in which it operates – cannot offer any direct evidence in this issue, because it seeks to reveal the material and natural causes to observable events. However, what it can provide are preludes upon which the desired evidence can be based. This uncovers what is one of the problematic areas in many atheist discourses, especially those that make science out to be the sole source of knowledge, thus shutting down the path of demonstrating evidence for Allah’s existence. This is because this would mean the sources of knowledge are restricted to material means alone. It casts a prison from which one cannot escape. A person may only be able to source knowledge of causes – and their causes – from inside this material prison, even if all the evidence suggests that the solution lies outside these prison walls. By the same logic, the efforts of atheists to demonstrate the non-existence of Allah are also from outside this material framework, as they are merely philosophical summaries based on that knowledge. This is why it is important to highlight the conflation that oftentimes occurs between scientific knowledge that is known to be correct on the one hand, and the philosophical theories that are based on science on the other. These theories, after distillation and analysis, might turn out to be correct after all, though they might be proven false as well.

First concept: The fine-tuning of the universe.

One scientific concept that can be leveraged to uncover the deeply consummate construct of the universe is known as the fine-tuning of the universe. This idea first surfaced in a paper written by the physicist Brandon Carter in 1974, which was titled ‘Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology’. The next work to appear on this was by Bernard Carr and Martin Rees in 1979 called ‘The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world’, followed by the classic encyclopaedic work The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in 1986. Subsequently, many writings on this issue appeared, all of which carry the same premise.

The key premise is that when the universe is contemplated, we can see that there are standardised and extremely finely-tuned laws and constants in place for life to exist; in fact, some of these laws are so finely balanced that the existence of the entire universe rests upon it, and that any imbalance in any of these constants would lead to ultimate destruction. The level of mastery present in the making of the universe is not restricted only to biological living beings or this astonishing planet in which we live. This mastery extends to the laws and constants that govern this universe. These constants are a set of numerical data that have been very carefully selected, such that if they would have fallen either side of those numbers to even a small extent, the entire system of life – and in fact the entire universe itself – would disappear. The very existence of the universe is linked to these crucial numbers. Stephen C. Meyer, founder and director of the Discovery Institute, clarifies this with an example: ‘Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate “universe-creating machine”, with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitational constant, one for Planck’s constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculation that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely-tuned dial settings?’257

The logical conclusion, which we shall come onto, is that there is something that calibrated these dials so that those constants could gain and retain the values that are distinct to them and necessary for the existence of life and the universe.

When we ponder over the Earth’s gravitational pull, its control over us, and how it pulls us back down to itself, we feel that there is a mighty force from which there is no escape. However, when compared to other natural forces, it appears to be very weak. In fact, it is 1036 times weaker than the strong nuclear force. The weakness of gravity compared to other natural forces is a key element in the extremely precise fine-tuning for life. In the New Scientist magazine, in the article titled ‘Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?’, it states, ‘The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.’258

The gravitational constant of the universe has been incredibly and precisely tuned – had it been off even by 1060, we would not have existed. To understand 257 Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, p. 57.

how exceedingly narrow this life-permitting range is, imagine you have a fine tuning machine or a calibrating dial. Then you divided the degrees of the dial by 1060(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

,000,000,000) probabilities, and you are required to get the tuning right from this pile of probabilities. Another example is this: You grab a measuring tool like a ruler and measure the universe from one side to the other, then you measure up the gravitational force of the Earth and place that value on that ruler – if you erred by even one inch, it would spark a cataclysm. Surely it would be more rational to believe, given that this finely-tuned number is in play, that this was a result of knowledge, and that it could not have been by sheer coincidence.

Martin Rees, the famous British physicist and author of Just Six Numbers, clarifies that had gravity been slightly stronger than it is, the stars would burn out and their energy would be rapidly depleted, causing their untimely death. If, for example, the Sun’s gravity was doubled, its possible age would reduce from a possible 10 billion years to just 100 million years.259 In addition, this gravitational pull would cause the planets orbiting around it to be extremely small. As for living beings that stay alive on those fragile planets that support life, they would be crushed by gravity if their size increased even by the span of an insect, which would mean that any intelligent life would be impossible. The New Scientist magazine article goes further and mentions that for the universe to be able to support life, there must have been a balancing act between the expanding rate of the universe and the gravity to within one part in 1015, just one second after the Big Bang – any imbalance in this early moment of the universe would have spelled doom for any prospect of life.

This is the force that is responsible for the stability of matter by holding together protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus, thereby forming atomic nuclei. All protons as we know carry a positive charge; what allows it to remain stable inside the atom nucleus – and not being expelled – is the strong nuclear force. It is like trying to force two magnets of the same pole together – doing so would lead to repulsion. However, if the power that is attempting to put them together is stronger, it would be possible to overcome repulsion. The strong nuclear force is also balanced in extremely precise fashion. Had it been weaker by 2%, hydrogen atoms would have undergone repulsion and would have never been able to bond with other chemicals, leaving the universe in a state of nothing other than hydrogen atoms roaming around. Conversely, had this force 259 Astrophysicists estimate that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, and that it has enough hydrogen to remain alive for a further 5 billion + years. been 2% stronger, the hydrogen atoms would have bonded with each other so rapidly that they would have all become helium, which would have been the overwhelmingly predominant chemical element across the universe. There is a wonderful balance in this force: Some hydrogen atoms bond to become helium atoms, whereas the rest of the hydrogen remains to form all other chemical elements, such as bonding with oxygen to form water. It would be difficult to envisage any life without this perfect balance in this force. What has been said for the strong nuclear force is equally applicable to the weak nuclear force, as well as the electromagnetic force. Along with gravity and the strong nuclear force, they represent the four forces that regulate the universe. All four are so finely balanced that if any of them were to change even in the slightest, life would not have been able to exist. Examples that are indicative of fine-tuning are too numerous to mention. They can be studied and observed in the books that deal with this wondrous phenomenon. Some works that come to mind in this regard are Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees, Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life? by Rodney Holder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by Gerald Schroeder, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology by Alister McGrath, The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies, and God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science by Neil Manson. In fact, most Western writings that have researched this argument showcase a variety of examples to demonstrate the finely-tuned nature of the universe, its laws, and its constants. What is wondrous about this state of being finely-tuned is that, had some of these forces not been where they exactly are, the universe would have long ceased to exist the way we know it. Some forces are balanced in a way that allowed the development of stars, planets, and matter. Other forces are so finely balanced that they were simply put in place to welcome mankind. The lattermost point is what is known as the anthropic principle. There is a set of data related to the nature of this universe that would have made it unsuitable for life had it been any different. The British philosopher Antony Flew skilfully painted an image of this argument in his book There is a God:

As for the atheist viewpoint that the universe was – supposedly – always going to come to a point where it is now at, then that is not necessarily the case. This is the stance that most physicists adopt, such as Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, George Ellis, and others. For example, Davies states, ‘A genuine theory of everything must explain not only how our universe came into being, but also why it is the only type of universe that there could have been – why there could only be one set of physical laws.’264

The determinist position claiming that these constants were bound to appear leads to the position that it would be impossible for any universe to come into existence in which there is no life, and that the existence of the universe in this narrowly suitable manner was determined and always bound to happen. This goes against reality: All the data suggest that the probability of a universe – like ours – that would support life is extremely minuscule compared to the infinite probabilities of lifeless universes. There is not even a whiff of evidence that would suggest that these constants must always come about in this manner. Indeed, some scientists speak of a theory that has not been discovered until now. It is called the ‘theory of everything’ (TOE). It attempts to offer a theory that organises the four forces of nature into one law, which will hugely simplify a lot of aspects in physics. The search for this theory had already begun with Einstein, who said, ‘What really interests me is whether God could have created the world any differently.’ Of course, his efforts in this regard did not come to any fruition. The ‘string theory’ is a continuation of the attempt to find TOE. The most famous attempt today – which is at the forefront of these discussions and is the lead theory – is what is known as the ‘M-theory’, which attempts to unify all consistent versions of string theory under one rule. Such assumptions are the go to default of some people who want to explain why the universe’s laws and constants are as they are. Victor Stenger says, ‘Many physicists expect that ultimately a theory of everything (TOE) will be discovered that will include a calculation of all its parameters. In that case, there will be nothing to fine-tune.’265

Therefore, would the demonstrable existence of something like the M-theory lead to the accuracy of the deterministic view of the universe, leading to the denial of the existence of Allah ? It does not seem so – for two reasons.

Firstly, let us assume that these types of cosmological constants are governed by a law whose values – in light of that law – can only be in accordance with the existing data. Would such a law in itself be deterministic and envisaged only as such? Or would it be possible for it to assume different scenarios and variations that result in different values for the cosmological constants? If that is the case, the question would switch from one of ‘Why are the constants like this?’ to ‘Out of all the probable versions, why is it only this version of absolute law?’ Therefore, the process of seeking out an absolute and universal rule that would govern all theories would no longer have any impact in the debate over the existence of Allah , because Allah Himself would have been the author of this first rule, and He would have been the One Who delineated those values and numbers that made the universe suitable for life.

We leave the answer to this to Weinberg:

I mean it's not only a speculation. The theory would be speculative, but we don’t have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized, yeah. But it’s a possibility. But the only other explanation is that is not even an explanation because we don’t have a candidate theory. But the only explanation that seems to work is that this is just one of those things that varies from sub-universe to sub-universe, from Big Bang to Big Bang. In most of the Big Bangs, it’s much larger than what we observe. And in those Big Bangs, they go through because this energy drives the expansion of the universe depending on whether it’s positive or negative. In the universe that blows up so rapidly, there’s no time for galaxies or stars to form, or it crunches or re-collapses so rapidly again there’s no time after life to form, yes. So it has to be small for life to exist, and it’s about as small as it as in fact that’s interesting it’s not much smaller than it would have to be to allow life to arise…and it must be at least 1056, or if you think you have some idea about fluctuations in even shorter distances I think you would say at least 10120. In fact, that's a little disturbing.271

Alexander Vilenkin says, A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty…This is the most notorious and perplexing case of fine-tuning in physics. String theorist Leonard Susskind, a non-religious scientist, as is Vilenkin, writes in his article, Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant, that unless this constant was fine-tuned, “statistically miraculous events” would be needed for our universe to be life-permitting. He suggests that, in light of this, it is possible that an unknown agent set the early conditions of the universe we observe today.272

The British physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose went further:

[He] calculated that the odds of our universe having such low disorder at the beginning of time are 1 in 1010^123 power (one followed by a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeroes). This number is so large that if you wrote out all the zeroes it would stretch across the galaxy. You’re more likely to win 10,000 lotteries in a row – and get struck by lightning every time you won – than you ever finding a universe with low disorder at its inception. Atheist John Loftus agreed with the reality of fine-tuning. Citing the work of other physicists, he writes, “These examples can be multiplied, but the point is that ‘with a change in any one of a number of factors’, the ‘universe would have evolved as a lifeless, unconscious entity.’” Don Page of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, calculated the odds against the formulation of our universe. His exact computation was 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power, a number so large that to call it “astronomical” would be to engage in a wild understatement.

One piece of jargon coined by the biochemist Dr. Michael Behe at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania is ‘irreducible complexity’. He wrote this in his famous book Darwin’s Black Box, in a chapter titled after it. Irreducible complexity is the idea that complex composite phenomena that require component parts that work in mutual harmony must have been made as thus in one go; if any lagged behind in evolution, the entire system of such phenomena would have collapsed. This proves that there must have been a designer who fashioned these phenomena in one go. So that any biological system can function properly, it must have three elements to it:

1. All its constituent parts must be present.

2. All its constituent parts must be present simultaneously.

3. All its constituent parts must bond with one another in a precise and harmonious manner. The position purporting the universe to be an accident is on a very bumpy road before it could ever acquire these three conditions. This automatically should mean that there was a designer who fashioned these phenomena in the organised and precise manner that it did, and that they did not evolve through what atheists say are the blind laws of nature, random genetic mutations, or natural selection processes from primitive forms until they became the complex entities that they are. Such a position lends itself to reductionism and oversimplification, which contradicts the evolution theory that assumes that any complex biological system would have progressively evolved from simpler and simpler forms, going all the way back to its very first and simplest form. If phenomena lent themselves to such an oversimplification, it would automatically mean that they were all made in one go. Given this, the designer position is the more rational answer to the question of how we came into existence. In his book, Behe mentioned a number of 286 https://www.economist.com/letters/2006/01/19/on-devan-nair-american-poverty-the-death-penalty evolution-deutsche-bank-gay-marriage examples from the natural world for these phenomena. The most famous and most iconic example of irreducible complexity is bacterial flagellum. This bacterium has a molecular motor that spins around, which allows it to move around in liquid with great ease. Its tail is made up of 40 different protein parts – if any one of those was not present at any given time, the bacteria would have been rendered non-functional. This demonstrates that it is an irreducibly complex organism that could not have gone through evolution, but rather came into nature in one go. Systems like the bacterial flagellum would be most easily and rationally explained by having come into existence through the willing and choosing doer that designed them as such, not that they gradually evolved by way of natural selection or slow genetic mutation as per the basic Darwin model. This is just one example. There are many other examples. ‘For example, in 1998 the leading journal, Cell, featured a special issue on “Macromolecular Machines”. Molecular machines are incredibly complex devices that all cells use to process information, build proteins, and move materials back and forth across their membranes. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines”. In it, he stated that: ‘We have always underestimated cells…The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines…Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.’287 The cell is a world unto its own, brimming with systems and various mechanisms. Each has been made in a specific way and carries out its own task. In toto, these systems and mechanisms play a role in the life of this cell.

When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix of DNA, they were able to solve a mystery of life. However, it led to another mystery. The nature of the data present in the genetic code was a mystery that puzzled scientists. Many tried to explain the incredible amount of biological information embedded within cells through the narrow lens of the materialistic outlook on the universe that does not recognise any other explanation outside its remit. Indeed, it would appear to be difficult for scientism to explain this. Through their discovery of the make up of the genetic code, Watson and Crick were able to reveal a huge data mine inside DNA, which is expressed through four bases and four chemical letters: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). These four bases are organised into particular shapes, in order to store and disseminate the list of genetic instructions for making proteins and other enzymes for cells to remain alive. In 1955, Crick theorised that the chemical components in DNA work similar to the letters of a language in constructing sentences, or how code operates in creating computer programmes. In other words, just like how computer programmes are put together to undertake specific tasks, likewise this sequence is put together in the nucleotides to perform specific duties, referred to as programmed sequencing. Significantly, Dawkins admitted: ‘The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.’290 This was echoed by Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft: ‘Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.’291

Programme codes are based on the specific sequencing of the 0 and 1 digits that suffice to store data and play computer applications. And as Arabic with all its 29 letters is sufficient to compose sentences and convey meanings, DNA relies on a type of subtle series of the four nucleotides, or ACGT. These four bases, or four letters, are responsible for storing and transporting genetic information that deals with the presence and construction of special proteins. Based on this, programmed sequencing comprises not only of great complexity but also specific duty assignments. This leads to a greater question: How did this specified programmed sequencing come about? In other words, from where did this astonishing level of information come?

This is a hugely important question. It exposes the great problem facing materialistic ideologies in their quest to answer the ‘How did life come about?’ question. It seems that materialists would arrive at a wrong outcome, because – simply put – they are looking for the answer in the wrong place. Ever since the late 1920s, those scientists believed that it is possible to explain the first moments of life in accordance with processes that are not directed by chemical evolution. In the book The Origin of Life, that was published in 1938, Alexander Oparin presented an early theory of chemical evolution that comprised of the appearance of life through gradual changes that began with simple chemical solutions of organic matter during the early phases of Earth. Whereas Darwinism dealt with the interpretation of the root of this variety across living organisms and how multitudes of complex types evolved from simple forms, chemical evolution deals with the emergence of life and the first cells, or in more precise terms, the first chemical composite that was able to replicate itself. Since the late 1970s up to today, scientific theories on chemical evolution have been unable to explain the origin of life, let alone the complexity and specificity in the DNA bases that are necessary for a live cell. The Belgian chemist and physicist Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel laureate, said, ‘The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.’

Having concluded the discussion on the second rational indicator for Allah’s existence – the argument from systemisation and immaculateness – we now present the most salient objections that have been made to it. These objections have targeted both its propositions and its conclusion.

First objection: Mastery is just a projection This is a strange objection. I have come across atheists who reject the manifestations of mastery and greatness in this universe, all to varying degrees and under various pretences. Some are sceptical of whether the universe is masterfully made to begin with, believing that such a claim is just a personal projection on the cosmos. They claim that our reading of the universe offers us this illusion, even though it has no objective meaning in the universe. In other words, the mastery all around us does not necessarily mean that there was a masterful process of construction per se. For example, when we see the sculpture of a human, we would appreciate the nature of construction there. After all, we, looking on at this scene, are humans as well. If it were assumed that some creation never saw a human in its entire life, he might pass by the sculpture without noting any feature of mastery therein; he would probably think this is nothing more than a regular rock, or a rock that has been eroded somewhat, without having been the subject of intervention (i.e., sculpturing) by a willing actor. Similarly, if someone were to see the letters of a language and script that he does not understand, he might think that they were just random scribbles. Therefore, seeing any feature therein would be a projection onto them. I used to think that these sorts of views were confined to statements by philosophers on the peripheries – such as those by the atheist philosopher Baron d’Holbach (d. 1789) – and were not in circulation within modern atheist philosophy. It was not until when I read some of this in contemporary writings, as well as some discussions and encounters I personally experienced, that it dawned on me that such an objection is still in vogue. The fact is that this objection is very odd, for it comprises a gross obstinance and a bizarre error. In fact, the very examples brought here expose the error. The sculpting of a rock by a willing actor, and the set of letters and script belonging to a specific language, reveal mastery as an objective reality in these matters; cognition and knowledge is what leads to the discovery of this reality. So whatever masterful construct exists in the universe there is, it would carry on increasing our experiences and knowledge. This process of discovery will remain so long as experience and knowledge keep on giving. Such a form of thinking undoubtedly leads a person to negate all objective reality. If you are sceptical about whether a complex composition can offer knowledge, and you avoid this sort of conceptualisation under the pretence of the relativity of any such judgement, and that it has no objective reality to it, it will land you into becoming sceptical of everything around you, as it would be possible that everything is also just a projection and devoid of any objective value that is separate from you. This takes away any objective value from human conceptualisation, and instead refers it to mere relative cognition that is subject to doubt, which can lead the bearer of such a philosophy into a type of sophism. The truth is that these sceptics themselves would not behave in this way in their day-to-day lives, as it is diametrically opposed to any sound human fiṭrah, and also because its implications would lead to the destruction of any justification for discovering the world and interacting with it.

An important book for the New Atheists in the debate over the issue of the universe being precisely calibrated is by the atheist physicist Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. He by the way is also the author of God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, which is a key text in New Atheism. The concept behind the book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning is obvious from its title. It attempts to refute the prevailing notion that the universe is characterised by a high level of fine-tuning – even at the level of its cosmological constants and events – and that our existence would have been impossible were it not for this precise balancing. This notion is widespread across the works of many scientists, both theists and atheists. In fact, Stenger himself states, ‘Even atheist physicists find this so-called “anthropic principle” difficult to explain naturally, and many think they need to invoke multiple universes to do so.’298

The fact is that the list of people who believe in the fine-tuning of the universe is lengthy and comprises of many names, who have a variety of ways in expressing how the phenomenon of fine-tuning came about. These people are: Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek, and many others.299 In his book, Stenger selects a number of passages from scientists who express their amazement at this phenomenon of precise fine-tuning:

Let us look at a few quotations selected from the vast literature on the subject. Back in 1985, astronomer Edward Robert Harrison wrote: “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine-tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes, or design that requires only one.” Geneticist Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and at this writing directs the United States National Institutes of Health. In his 2006 bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins argues for the following interpretation of the data: “The precise tuning of all the physical constants and physical laws to make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the universe in the first place.” Physician Michael Anthony Corey writes: “The stupendous degree of fine tuning that instantly existed between these fundamental parameters following the Big Bang reveals a miraculous level of micro engineering that is simply inconceivable in the absence of a ‘supercalculating’ Designer. Astronomer George Greenstein asserts: “As we survey the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or rather Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” And theoretical physicist Tony Rothman adds, “The medieval theologian who gazed at the night sky through the eyes of Aristotle and saw angels moving the spheres in harmony has become the modern cosmologist who gazes at the same sky through the eyes of Einstein and sees the hand of God not in angels but in the constants of nature…When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science to religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”’300

One position that expresses a denial of sorts – though not a complete denial – of the argument from fine-tuning is the one that acknowledges that the universe is finely balanced, but that it is miniscule amid the expansive universe, the overwhelming majority of which is not suitable for life. They claim: ‘How is it accurate for us to say that the universe has been carefully and finely-tuned when 99.9999999999% of this world is empty and unsuitable for life?’ This is an objection I frequently heard from Christopher Hitchens. In fact, when Richard Dawkins, in his famous sit down in The Four Horsemen video, admitted that the argument from fine-tuning is the strongest argument of theists, Hitchens interjected and offered this same objection. Richard Carrier depicts the topic by saying, ‘In fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton).’314

There are two points that ought to be noted when answering this objection. Firstly, this way of presenting the objection is misleading. The idea of fine-tuning means that the universe we are in has life, even in spite of the probabilities of the existence of many other universes that are unsuitable for life, even if as small as a microscopic speck in a house. This is an extremely unique position to be in – by the very admission of physicists themselves, given the examples they offer. It is a position worthy of being recognised as such, the cause of which ought to be investigated. Consequently, the question here is not why there is a huge vacuum in the universe, but rather why life can be found in the universe in spite of the massive probability of it being unattainable. As thus, the fact that this level of fine-tuning exists – even if it is meagre compared to the rest of the universe – is sufficient to establish the required indication for the existence of God, even if this level of fine-tuning is not present in other places. It would be like a man ordering his children to organise and tidy up an extremely messy house and leaves. When he returns, he finds that a tiny part of the house has been tidied. Would it be possible to deny that this small part was not tidied by anyone, just because the rest of the house was still a disorganised mess?

Secondly, the fact that we do not know the wisdom behind the expansive universe is not a sufficient justification to relinquish our knowledge of the information on the existence of life in a minute part of this universe and overlooking it. In fact, some physicists mention that some important data for the existence of life mean there is a need for this wide expanse. For example, in a ‘Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot’ podcast episode titled 11 Responses to Fine-Tuning315, Luke Barnes mentions that for the universe to accommodate life in wider regions, its mass must increase there as well; if that was achieved, gravity would have to increase; if gravity increased, it would have meant that the crunch right after the Big Bang would have been accelerated. The issue therefore requires an investigation of the causes that are behind this huge expanse, and whether it has a net positive influence on the existence of life in our universe. The issue does not need to marginalise the complexity of the various parameters we need for the creation of a universe that can sustain life. Furthermore, the value of things is not measured in material dimensions. Though we acknowledge that the size of man compared to this awesome cosmos is insignificant, it is man’s spiritual element of purpose and meaning that makes him superior. The esteem and honour that Allah has given him does not prevent this universe, with all that is in it, from being created for his sake. The Arab poet said:

One dubious objection that attempts to throw doubt on the precision and finely tuned nature of the universe is that we have only experienced the universe we are in; therefore, we have no way of conducting a comparison between our universe and other universes in order to ascertain how masterfully – or not – they have been made. Victor Stenger says, ‘At the same time, I see no reason to try to imagine a universe with different “laws”, since there are no such laws that we have access to as humans. Barring revelation, all we know is what we observe, and the best we can do is build models to describe those observations.’316

The fact is that this objection demonstrates a degree of obstinance or ignorance vis-à-vis the nature of the mastery we are talking about – and an ignorance of the sheer number of examples of observable fine-tuning in our universe. On this, the physicist John Barrow said, Take a sheet of paper and place upon it a red dot. That dot represents our universe. Now alter slightly one or more of the finely-tuned constants and physical quantities that have been the focus of our attention. As a result we have a description of another universe, which we may represent as a new dot in the proximity of the first. If that new set of constants and quantities describes a life-permitting universe, make it a red dot; if it describes a universe that is life- 316 The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 234.

prohibiting, make it a blue dot. Now repeat the procedure arbitrarily many times until the sheet is filled with dots. What one winds up with is a sea of blue with only a few pinpoints of red. That is the sense in which it is overwhelmingly improbable that the Universe should be life-permitting. There are simply vastly more life-prohibiting universes in our local area of possible universes than there are life permitting universes.317

In fact, it is self-evident that the possibility of observing mastery is not necessarily dependent on whether or not a comparison can be conducted between it and chaos, just in order for us to learn whether what is in front of us is masterfully designed or not. Mastery is a state that can be recognised in most instances without knowing what the opposite of it would look like. Generally speaking, such a train of thought shuts down the door to scientific research on the cause behind these constants in the way they are. A person of such a mentality would say, ‘It is as it is and that’s it.’ In fact, this type of thought process shuts down any possibility to convince the other side of the existence of Allah , as it might invoke the notion that this matter is extant in our universe, and we cannot come across other universes to verify how exceptional or unique our universe is. For instance, if we discover that the human genetic code has ‘Made by Allah’ imprinted onto it, it would be probable that this opponent will even dispute that is the case. There would be no way to know whether this is an exceptional matter that could have only come from an Omnipotent and Willing Doer, or whether it is natural for the universe that we are living in.

Objections here are based on the notion that the manifestations of mastery and immaculateness in this world do not necessarily mean that they emanated from an Omniscient, Willing, and Omnipotent Doer. These objections assert that it is possible that these manifestations came about as a result of natural and material causes instead. If we look beyond the issues of coincidence and determinism as two suitable answers to explain this phenomenon of the universe’s intricacy for the reasons outlined before, we will see there are many proposals by atheists to explain this mastery. These alternative proposals represent the most significant objections, with some of them being outlined below.

This theory dominates biology. In fact, its influence stretches to multiple ideological and cognitive branches. Highlighting the nature of the contemporary Western cultural identity, Dr. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Masīrī stated it is ‘Darwinist modernism’. The best representation of evolution that opposes the idea of intelligent design built into living beings is the thesis offered by Richard Dawkins in his book Climbing Mount Improbable. The thesis goes like this: Imagine we are on a high mountain. One side is extremely steep and cannot be negotiated. The other side is somewhat steep but not enough to put people off from walking up to ascend to the summit. We can therefore try to reach the summit from the extremely steep side even though it is shorter, or we can ascend from the other side in easier fashion. However, we would need to take the longer route to reach the summit. In this example, let us assume that the complex biological systems are the summit – the possibility of reaching these systems from the short way is very hard, because any gradual self-composition of such systems would be impossible. However, these systems can self-compose through natural selection by way of retaining those characteristics that will ensure their survival and allow them to evolve to the next phase, and likewise for future steps – step by step – until we reach the summit.

I remember discussing this once with some youth who had been influenced by atheism. One of them raised an objection that was so brazenly inspired by the above argument. After a lengthy discussion, he admitted that coincidence is not suitable as an explanation for the manifestations of complexity, composition, and mastery in our existence. He said to me, ‘The complexity we see today in the universe and living beings could not have really come into existence simply in one go out of coincidence. However, what if all of this in the beginning was simple, but then with the passing of time, evolved until it became what we now see to be complex compositions? It would be impossible that man, for example, just left the water in one go because of random chemical reactions; however, that a cell left by chance would be more plausible, which then started to gradually evolve until various living beings – including man – emerged.’ Away from debating the details of whether there ever was a simple cell, how plausible it was for existence to appear as an accident, or that it was the beginning of all life, the basic idea of evolution is very clear. The ‘Dangerous Idea’ (as expressed by Daniel Dennett in the title of his book) of Charles Darwin’s theory is that complex systems can gradually emerge over a lengthy period of time – it is not necessary that they come into existence in one go.

This is not the place for a detailed discussion on Darwin’s theory or the objections that can be laid at some of its details. This would require an entirely separate piece of research, as can be appreciated by anyone who has some interest in this issue. What I want to focus on is to scrutinise the connection between this theory and the concept of Allah’s existence. In other words, does this theory really comprise of a reasonable objection against the notion that mastery and immaculateness are indicative of the existence of Allah ? Perhaps I can summarise this issue into the following points:

This objection is based on the notion that our universe is not the only universe in existence, but there are rather an infinite or an immeasurable number of universes. This large number of universes would explain how our universe is precise and finely turned, without the need to assume there was a willing doer who created our universe. In other words, within the gargantuan number of universes, there is bound to be one which is conditioned perfectly for us. It is like the lottery: The chances of a person winning the billionaire prize is extremely low; however, the chance of at least one person winning is high. To clarify their view further, they offer this example: Imagine a man was presented for execution. When he was brought to the gallows, and before his eyes closed, he saw a hundred expert snipers in front of him, all of whom had trained their rifles on him. He shut his eyes, and then heard the sound of fire as the rifles were shot. He held his breath as he thought he was about to die, but he felt nothing. He felt his body and noticed he had not been impacted by even one bullet. Is it possible that this could have occurred by accident? Note that the snipers were experts, and it is highly unlikely they could have all missed. He started to think: ‘Perhaps they conspired not to kill me, or perhaps someone bribed them all to miss, or perhaps there was some other reason.’ The blindfold was removed from him. It turned out he was among a hundred other people, and the number of people to be executed were 101. Of course, in this case, one would still be alive. This is the view Stephen Hawking proposed in his book The Grand Design, which he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow. It reads: ‘The fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes. Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation. But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.’333 It is also the central idea that Dawkins relied upon in his book The God Delusion as he responded to the theists’ argument from fine-tuning.

The multiverse theory is in fact an umbrella term for various models, all of which are hotly contested in the scientific community. However, all agree for now that these are all merely quantitative assumptions that have no evidence in terms of how it is actually is. These models are as follows:

• The cyclic model or oscillating model This was touched upon earlier on in the first rational argument. It proposes that the universe explodes and expands to the farthest limit possible, then it collapses on itself (or crunches), and the process is repeated. In each iteration, the universe has different universal constants in which these numbers can experiment their attempts at creating life – a process that goes on and on. This is because the number of times this can happen is limitless, so the desired numbers that would be conducive to life would inevitably come. This model has a number of problems. The very idea of oscillation is not acceptable, especially in light of Vilenkin’s views that assert it is impossible for the explosion-crunch process to continue from pre-eternality into infinity – the universe must have a definite beginning, as discussed previously. Even if it is assumed that this model is accurate, it would run into problems with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy can only increase. The universe begins with order; as it expands, it would switch to greater entropy. When the universes crunches, it would not return to the same level of order that it previously had, but rather to a lesser degree of order. When the next explosion occurs there will be less order, meaning life would be even more improbable. In fact, if entropy was to continue to increase as per the implication of the oscillating model, the universe would reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium – something that has obviously not yet occurred. • The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum physics In quantum mechanics, this is what is known as quantum superposition. For example, as an electron spins, it cannot be determined in which direction it is spinning. As per quantum superposition, both are possible unless we start observing it very closely. It is only upon closer observation that we can ascertain which direction it is spinning in. The point here is not to discuss this specific issue of electrons as much as its connection to one of the proposed models for the creation of multiverses. Hugh Everett was the one who first proposed this model. He said that at the time of observation, the universe is divided into two: in one universe, the electron spins one way; in the other, the electron is spinning the other way. It would seem that this model has nothing to offer to the question of how the universe is so finely tuned. Whereas the multiverse theory proposes that there are an infinite number of universes and one of them must be conditioned perfectly for life, the multiverse in Everett’s suggestion – even though it does create multiple universes – is governed by the same set of rules and constants. Therefore, this model does not really offer any answer to the question.

This objection is based on analogising the manifestations of mastery proving they constitute the doing of an Omniscient and Willing Doer to that of man’s deeds. As theists, when we see something in nature that is masterfully made, it would automatically come into our minds that this was the making of a doer. If we are unable to ascribe this making to a human, we would automatically ascribe it to some other doer. This objection states that this analogy is incorrect. Our observation of man’s masterful work is what suggests to us that his making is to be ascribed to him. As for nature and the universe, we have not seen how they were made, nor did we see how the manifestations of mastery took shape therein. Therefore, we cannot pass judgement on what we were not there to witness.

Though this objection is relatively ancient, the one who systemised it is David Hume via his typical scepticism vis-à-vis the principle of causality. This scepticism has been imbibed by atheist thought to a large degree, giving rise to a plethora of problems. Hume commented extensively on this objection, especially in his book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The presence of this objection among atheists has become increasingly conspicuous, especially when they debate proponents of intelligent design or creationists. They claim that masterful construction in itself does not necessarily mean that a selective maker exists. This delusion that we sense in ourselves comes from observing the masterful makings of man, so it appeared to our minds that the will of a doer is the cause of mastery. This is a non sequitur. This is why we find one angle of objection made on Paley’s famous watchmaker argument to be that it is improper to analogise mastery in the universe to mastery in a watch. Though the construct of a watch is from a willing maker, this does not have to be the case for the universe. The most that can be said is that some manifestations of mastery can be ascribed to a doer – with the condition that it be as a result of observation and induction. Our judgement that watches have a maker is based on seeing the first watch being made, the second watch being made, and so on. As for the universe, we cannot see or comprehend that it has a maker, let alone comprehend that the maker may have made a second or third universe. Therefore, it is not proper to jump to this sort of conclusion – i.e., that the universe has a maker – based on the fact that both the universe and watches are masterfully constructed. This objection surfaced during the debate between Dr. ʿAmr Sharīf and Bassām al-Baghdādī on the Misr 25 satellite channel, moderated by Eng. Fāḍil Sulaymān over three episodes. Eng. Fāḍil picked up a glass in his hand and asked Bassām, There is this glass in front of you. Is its existence not evidence for the existence of a maker who made this glass?’ Bassām: We know that this cup exists and we know the factory that manufactured it. Have you seen what made the universe that we are in? Have you seen other universes to compare this one to them?

Eng. Fāḍil: No – you have not understood my question. I am asking you, Bassām, that if you do not know the factory in which it was manufactured, would the mere existence of the glass still not be evidence that it has a maker?

First objection: Who set the standards?

The person I have heard repeating this objection the most is Richard Dawkins. This objection forms the central argument in his book The God Delusion. In brief, this objection states that if God is the One Who set the standards of the universe, then who set those standards in the first place? In other words, if God created the universe in the consummate manner that He did, then who created God? At its core, this objection is based on the famous atheist question – ‘Who created God?’ We have discussed it in detail, in the section of the argument from creation that denotes the existence of Allah . It contains answers to many elements of this objection. The nature of this objection that Dawkins raises is in fact an evolved version of the objection that he adopted elsewhere, which was his objection to the argument from the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful construct. If the question ‘Who created God?’ is a central objection to the argument from creation, then a central objection to the argument from the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful making is ‘Who tuned the Tuner?’ and ‘Who designed the Designer?’ This evolution in the argument carries an additional objection on top of the ‘Who created God?’ question, as Richard Dawkins puts it: ‘God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain.’360 The point he wants to make from this objection is that if we want an explanation for the composition and complexity that is present in the masterful construct of Allah, then Allah Himself is far more composite and more complicated than the universe; therefore, we are only adding further complexity by assuming that Allah exists as a solution to the problem that is less complicated than the proposal that He exists. Dawkins landed himself into a number of dangerous errors:

1. It is clear that Dawkins operates from a corporealist conceptualisation of God, in which he assumes that the Creator should be of the same genus of this created world. This is why he is prepared to depict God with ambiguous phrases such as ‘composite’ and ‘complex’, when in fact God is far above this material existence. There is absolutely no comparison between His essence and the rest of His creation, as Allah says of Himself: ‘There is nothing like Him, for He alone is the All-Hearing, All Seeing.’361

2. Dawkins commits a comical error where he thinks that introducing God as an answer to the question of the systematic nature of the universe and its masterful making is a composite and complex answer. This is not the case at all; in fact, it is the most obvious and simplest of all answers. It appears that Dawkins has conflated two issues:

a. That which is in relation to the essence and entity of God.

In brief, the thought process behind this objection is this: ‘Assuming, arguendo, that the proof does indeed point to the existence of a willing doer that made the world in the masterful manner that we see, who told you that it is God?’ This objection was dismantled when we discussed the argument from creation. The actual point of contention with atheists is whether the universe was created by a willing doer or not. If it is affirmed that this entity exists, it would be possible to safely assume that it is Allah, and that the argument from the systematic nature of the universe is indicative of some of Allah’s attributes. In fact, the evidence for this is extremely clear, for it guides us to the fact that this willing doer has the characteristics of will, power, knowledge, wisdom, life, mercy, and other attributes that are typically associated with Allah. I conclude this point by clarifying the nature of atheist logic when dealing with these types of issues by pointing out that they are composed in such a complex manner that disallows atheists from ever considering any argument in support of the existence of Allah. One Arab atheist states that had he even seen God and embraced Him, that would still not prove that He is the Creator of the universe; were He to create something in front of us, ‘that would still not be proof that He created me’. That is the type of stubbornness that reveals the chasm between us and them, which is virtually impossible to be bridged when discussing this topic with these types of people. After all, guidance is in the Hand of Allah  – He guides whom He wishes and He leads astray whom He wishes.

And with this final objection, we end this section and come to the conclusion of the book.