Masanin kimiyyar lissafi dan Birtaniya Paul Davies yana da wani littafi mai ban sha'awa mai suna The Goldilocks Enigma. Littafin yana ƙoƙarin bayyana wani al'amari mai ban mamaki game da yanayin duniyar da muke rayuwa a cikinta, ta yadda take daidai kuma cikin daidaito a gare mu, kamar dai duniya ce ta Goldilocks. Kamar yadda duk wanda ya san wannan kalma ya sani, an aro wannan take daga wani shahararren labarin yara, Goldilocks and the Three Bears. A taƙaice, wata yarinya mai suna Goldilocks ta sami gidan beyoyi a cikin daji. Kowane bear yana da nasa abinci, kujera, da gado. Bayan ta gwada kowannensu, Goldilocks ta gano cewa biyu daga cikin uku (na uba da na uwa) ba su dace da ita ba, domin sun yi zafi ko sanyi sosai (abinci), sun yi tsayi ko ƙasa sosai (kujeru), kuma sun yi tauri ko laushi sosai (gadaje). Wanda ta samu ya dace da ita kawai shi ne na ƙaramin bear. Kwatancin a nan shi ne cewa duniyar da muke rayuwa a cikinta an halicce ta ne cikin ƙwarewa ta musamman: an daidaita ta sosai har idan ta kasance ta wata hanya daban, da ba za ta iya tallafa wa rayuwa ba. Daga wannan ne hujjar nufi (teleological argument) ke ɗaukar siffa. Wannan hujja an yi amfani da ita a faɗin dukkan addinai da kowane zamani da yanki. Misali, Rāzī ya ce: Fiṭrah tana shaida cewa bayyanar wani gida da aka rubuta a kansa rubuce-rubuce masu ban mamaki, aka gina shi cikin daidaito mai kyau da hikima da amfani, ba zai yiwu ba sai da wani marubuci mai ilimi da wani mai gini mai hankali. An sani cewa alamun hikima a duniyoyin sama da ƙasa sun fi yawa sosai fiye da bayyanar hikima a cikin wannan ƙaramin gida. Tun da fiṭrah ta asali tana shaida cewa rubutu yana buƙatar marubuci, ginin kuma yana buƙatar mai gini, wannan shaida za ta fi ƙarfi a game da wannan duniya baki ɗaya, wadda take buƙatar mahaliccin da yake aiki da zaɓi da hikima.243

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 ya ce, Allah ya sanya bayinsa – har ma da dabbobi – su so sanya kowane abu a wurinsa na dacewa, su aikata abubuwa a lokacinsu da ya dace, kuma su samu abubuwa ta hanyar da ake so. Haka kuma ya sanya su ƙi akasin haka da kuma tsayawa gāba da hanyoyin da aka ambata. Na farko yana nuna kamalar mai aikin, sanin sa, ikonsa, da ƙwarewarsa; akasinsa kuma yana nuna rashin kamalar sa da rashin sanin sa, ikonsa, da ƙwarewarsa. Wannan shi ne fitrah da mutane ba za su iya ficewa daga cikinta ba. Sananne ne cewa wanda ya sanya su haka, ya kuma sanya wannan ikon a cikinsu, zai fi cancanta da waɗannan kyawawan halaye fiye da su. Allah yana sanya abubuwa a wurarensu na dacewa. Yana bambanta su ta hanyar ba su siffofi, sura, tsari, da girma ta hanyar da Ya fi kowa sani. Yana fitar da su zuwa fili – kuma hakan ma a lokacin da ya dace da su kaɗai. Wanda yake da nazari mai kyau da tunani madaidaici, kuma yake yin tunani yadda ya kamata, zai shaida hakan a cikin abin da yake gani da sani. Zai yi amfani da abin da yake gani a matsayin hujja ga abin da ke ɓoye. Komai daga aikin Mai hikima, Masani ne. Domin nuna haka, ya isa a san hikimar da ke bayan halittar dabbobi, gaɓoɓinsu, siffofinsu, tsarinsu, amfanin da ake iya samu daga gare su, da kuma cewa sun tabbata suna wakiltar hikimar da ake so a cikinsu. Allah ya umarci bayinsa su yi haka: “…kamar yadda yake cikin kanku. Shin ba ku gani ba?”244; da “Shin ba sa duba ga raƙuma – yadda aka halicce su da fasaha?...”245 Haka nan, idan mutum ya yi tunani sosai ya kuma lura da duk halittunsa na sama da na ƙasa da abin da ke tsakanin su, zai ga cewa duka an tsara su ne kuma an lulluɓe su da babbar hikima. Zai iya karanta hikimar da aka zana a cikinsu, ya ce: "Wannan halittar Mai Sani, Mai Hikima ce, kuma hukuncin Mabuwayi, Mai Sani ne. Idan hankula sun iya samun wani abu da ya fi wannan dacewa, su bayar da shawara a kansa; idan sun ga wani abu da ya fi shi kyau, su kawo shi su nuna shi. Wannan ita ce halittar 'Wanda Ya halicci sammai bakwai, wani bisa wani. Ba za ka ga wani aibi ba a halittar Mai Rahama. Don haka sake duba: shin kana ganin wani kuskure?'"246 Duk wanda ya lura da wannan duniya kuma ya yi tunani a kanta yadda ya kamata, zai san cewa Mahaliccinta ne ya tsara ta da fasaha ya kuma ƙarfafa ta. Idan ya yi tunani a kanta, zai ga tana kama da gida wanda dukkan kayan aikinsa an shirya su. Sama an ɗaga ta kamar rufi, Ƙasa an shimfiɗa ta kamar tabarma, taurari an tara su kamar fitilu, kuma walwala an ajiye ta a cikinta kamar dukiya. Komai a cikinta an tsara shi ne don abin da ya dace da shi. Mutum kamar mai gidan ne da aka sa shi ya mallaki wannan gida. An shirya nau'ikan tsire-tsire domin amfaninsa. Ana amfani da dabbobi iri-iri don amfanin sa. Wasu daga cikinsu don madara, haihuwa da abinci ne kawai; wasu don hawa da sufuri ne kawai; wasu don kyau da ado ne; wasu kuma don dukkan waɗannan, kamar raƙumi – cikinsu ajiyar abin sha ne, abinci, magani da warkarwa. Akwai darasi a cikinsu ga waɗanda ke son lura, da alamu ga masu basira. Kuma a cikin tsuntsaye – tare da bambancin su, siffofinsu, launukansu, yawansu, amfanin da suke bayarwa, waƙoƙinsu, fukafukansu a buɗe da a naɗe, da tsarin ƙaura da zaman su – akwai babban darasi da bayyananniyar alama ga hikimar Mahalicci, Mai Sani.

Ibn Rushd ya yi bayani mai kyau game da wannan hujja. Ya ce: Dangane da hanyar da addini ya bi wajen koyar da jama'a cewa duniya halittar Allah ce, a lura cewa idan aka duba ayoyin da ke ɗauke da wannan ma'ana, za a ga cewa wannan hanya ce ta tanadi. Hanya ce ɗaya da muka bayyana cewa tana nuna kasancewar Mahalicci. Haka kuma, idan mutum ya duba wani abu da ake iya gani ya kuma ga an sifanta shi zuwa wata siffa, girma da tsari na musamman, kuma duk waɗannan suna daidai da amfani da manufar da za a tsammata daga gare shi (har ya zama dole ya yarda cewa wannan amfani ba za a samu ba idan aka sifanta shi zuwa wata siffa, tsari ko adadi daban), zai gamsu cewa wannan abu yana da mai yi wanda ya yi shi. Shi ya sa siffarsa, tsarinsa da girmansa suke daidai da amfaninsa. Haka kuma ba zai yiwu duk waɗannan abubuwa su haɗu ba da gangan don wannan amfani ba. Misali, idan mutum ya ga dutse a ƙasa, ya kuma ga an sifanta shi ta hanyar da ta sa ya dace a zauna a kansa, kuma tsarinsa da girmansa haka suke, zai sani cewa an sassaka wannan dutse ya zama kujera ta hannun wanda ya tsara shi ya kuma siffanta shi a wurin. Amma idan bai ga irin wannan tsari na zama ba, zai tabbata cewa bayyanar dutsen a wannan wuri da wannan yanayi ta faru ne da gangan, babu wani mutum da ya sanya shi a can. Haka ya shafi dukan duniya. Mutum zai iya duba cikinta ya ga Rana, Wata da taurari, waɗanda su ne sanadin yanayi huɗu, dare da rana, ruwan sama, ruwa, iska, da yankunan duniya da suka zama wuraren zaman mutane, kuma ana samun dabbobin ƙasa a cikinsu. Ya kuma ga cewa ruwa an daidaita shi domin halittun ruwa, iska kuma an sanya ta dace da halittun da ke tashi sama. Zai ga cewa idan wani daga cikin waɗannan siffofi da tsare-tsare ya rikice, duk halittun da ke nan za su rikice. Sawaba, zai kasance yana da tabbacin cewa ba zai yiwu dukkan sassan duniya su haɗu kwatsam saboda amfanin mutum, dabba da shuke-shuke ba; a maimakon haka, hakan ya kasance ta hannun wanda ya so hakan. Wannan kuwa shi ne Allah. Mutum kuma zai sani da cikakken yakini cewa an gina duniya, domin zai san ta ɗabi'arsa cewa ba zai yiwu a sami irin wannan haɗuwa ta hanyar kwatsam kawai ba tare da mahalicci ba. Irin wannan hujja tana da tabbaci kuma mai sauƙi, kamar yadda ya bayyana daga abin da muka rubuta a nan. Tushenta yana kan ka'idoji guda biyu da kowa ya yarda da su. Ɗaya shi ne cewa duniya, tare da dukkan sassanta, an daidaita ta da wanzuwar mutum da dukkan dabbobin da ke rayuwa a nan. Na biyu shi ne cewa duk abin da – tare da dukkan sassansa – aka daidaita shi da aiki guda ɗaya da manufa guda ɗaya, dole ne a ɗauke shi a matsayin wanda aka halitta. Waɗannan ka'idoji guda biyu a fili suna haifar da wannan: duniya an halitta ta, kuma tana da mahalicci. Hujjar tsari (na Ubangiji) tana nuna waɗannan maganganu guda biyu a lokaci ɗaya. Shi ya sa ita ce mafi daraja daga cikin hujjoji akan wanzuwar Mahalicci.248

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

Ɗaya daga cikin shahararrun kuma yaɗuwar sassan wannan hujja a duniyar Yamma shi ne kwatancin mai ban sha'awa da William Paley ya yi a littafinsa Natural Theology: "Idan ina tafiya a kan fili, na yi tuntuɓe a kan dutse, kuma aka tambaye ni yaya dutsen ya samu zama a wurin, zan iya amsawa da cewa, ga abin da na sani, ya kasance a wurin tun dā; kuma ba zai zama da sauƙi a nuna rashin hankalin wannan amsa ba. Amma ka ce na tarar da agogo a ƙasa, aka tambaye ni yaya agogon ya samu zama a wurin; ba zan yi tunanin amsar da na bayar a baya ba, cewa, ga abin da na sani, agogon zai iya kasancewa a wurin koyaushe. Amma me ya sa wannan amsa ba za ta yi aiki ga agogon kamar yadda take yi ga dutsen ba?"249

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

Amsar a bayyane take. Tsarin hadadden da agogo ya ƙunsa a dabi'ance yana nuna wanzuwar mai yinsa. Paley ya so ya yi kwatanci ga duniya daga agogo, wanda ke buƙatar wanzuwar mai yin agogo. Daga nan ne wannan misali ya zama sananne da suna 'kwatancin mai yin agogo', a matsayin misali na cewa duniya tana buƙatar Mahalicci Mai Hikima, Masani.

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.

Tsarin wannan hujja yana kama da tsarin hujjar halitta ta fuskar cewa ita ma tana dogara ga: a) bayanan da ake gani da fahimta ta hankali, da b) ra'ayoyi na asali da na dabi'a. Wannan shi ne abin da ke ba ta karfi. Wannan hujja tana da sauƙin fahimta da tsara a zuciya, babu wahala a cikinta. Misali, idan mutum ya kalli Grand Canyon, wato kwazazzabo mai gangara mai tsayi da ke a jihar Arizona, sannan ya kwatanta shi da Mount Rushmore da ke South Dakota, inda aka sassaka wani katon zane na shugabannin Amurka guda hudu a jikin dutsen granite na tsaunin, ko kuma sauran zane-zane da sassaken da mutum ya yi, zai fahimci cewa akwai bambanci bayyananne a tsakaninsu. Duk da cewa yana iya fahimtar cewa zaizayar iska da ruwan kogi ce ta haifar da na farko, ba zai iya gaskata cewa irin wannan abu ne zai iya haifar da na biyu ba. Ko da yake bai taba ganin yadda aka sassaka su ba, tabbas zai sani cewa akwai mutanen da suka yi hakan. Idan aka yi zurfin tunani a kan wannan batu don gano dalilin wannan bambanci, zai zama kawai saboda yanayin tsari da sarkakiyar ginin, wanda hakan ke sa aikin hannun mutum ya zama mai yiwuwa. Wannan ya bayyana dalilin da ya sa wannan hujja ta yadu sosai wajen tabbatar da kasancewar Allah. Kamar wadda ta gabace ta, tana daga cikin hujjojin da aka fi amfani da su a cikin da'irorin addini da na falsafa, kuma tana sanya halitta ta zama abin nazari, inda ake amfani da hankali da dalili a kanta. Alhali hujjar halitta ana amfani da ita ne wajen tabbatar da cewa dole ne a sami mahalicci ga halitta, wannan hujja kuwa tana amfani da yanayin daidaituwa mai kyau na halitta, wanda ke nuni da kasancewar Mahalicci Mai hikima, Masani. Hujja ta farko tana zana dalilinta daga lokacin halitta da kanta; wannan hujja kuwa tana zana dalilinta bayan halitta ta riga ta wanzu. Har ila yau, na biyu ya fice saboda yana gabatar da wasu siffofin Mahalicci, kamar cikakken ikonSa, nufinSa, saninSa, hikimarSa, da sauransu.

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.

Kamar yadda wannan hujja ake amfani da ita sosai, an samu sunaye daban-daban da ake kwatanta ta da su, ko da yake dukkansu suna nufin ma'ana ɗaya: hujjar tsari (argument from systemisation); hujjar daidaitawa mai kyau (argument from fine-tuning); hujjar tsari da zane (argument from design, teleological argument); hujjar kulawa ta Ubangiji (argument from providence); hujjar manufa (argument from purpose); da kuma hujjar tsari da shiri (argument from planning).

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.

Idan aka duba wahayi, za a iya samun amfani da wannan hujja a yalwace a matsayin shaida da ke taimakon bayi wajen bayyana girman Ubangiji da cikakken ilminsa, ikonsa, da hikimarsa. Tana tada dabi'ar asali ta mutum, wacce ke kiransa da ya danganta waɗannan alamomin gina mai kyau ga wani Mai hikima kuma Mai niyya mai aiki. Ka karanta misali wannan magana ta Allah: "Waɗanda ba su yi imani da Lahira ba suna da munanan halaye, alhali kuwa ga Allah ne mafi kyawun siffofi. Kuma Shi ne Mai girma, Mai hikima."250

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

"Allah ne Ya ɗaga sammai ba tare da ginshiƙai ba – kamar yadda kuke gani – sa'an nan Ya daidaita Kansa a kan Al'arshi. Ya hore Rana da Wata, kowannensu yana tafiya ga ƙayyadadden lokaci. Yana tafiyar da dukan al'amari. Yana bayyana ayoyi sarai domin ku tabbata da haɗuwarku da Ubangijinku."251

• ‘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

Ko da yake waɗannan ayoyi suna cikin mahallin tabbatar da dalilin da ya sa Ubangiji kaɗai ya cancanci a bauta masa – hujjar ita ce masu shirka sun yarda cewa Shi kaɗai ne Ubangiji mai cikakken iko – suna kuma nuna a fili cewa Allah yana wanzuwa. Gaskiyar lamari shi ne ayoyin da za a iya gabatarwa a wannan fanni sun yi yawa, ba za a iya lissafa su duka ba. Su ne ayoyin da suke umurtar bayi da su yi amfani da ikon tunaninsu wajen yin tunani a kan halittar sammai da ƙasa, canjawar dare da rana, kulawar da ake yi wa taurari, gizagizai, iska, da dukkan abubuwan halitta waɗanda ke nuna girman Mahaliccinsu. Bayan wannan, akwai ayoyin da suke magana a kan abubuwan al'ajabi na Allah a cikin masarautar dabbobi da tsirrai. Ko mutum kansa ba a keɓe shi daga wannan tsarin tunani ba – shi ma yana lura, kuma shi ma yana zama abin lura a lokaci guda. Shi ya sa Allah ya ce: "Lallai a cikin ƙasa akwai ayoyi ga masu yakini."254

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

Babu shakka cewa wannan hujja ta yi babban tasiri a cikin muhawarar da ke kewaye da wannan batu. Tasirinta ya kai har ta tilasta wa masu musun Allah da yawa su amince da ƙarfinta; ma'ana, ta sa wasu daga cikin shahararrun mutanensu su bar musun Allah gaba ɗaya. Masanin falsafa ɗan Burtaniya, Antony Flew, wanda tsohon mai musun Allah ne sananne, wanda a baya ya rubuta takardun bincike da yawa na goyon bayan musun Allah kuma ya halarci muhawara da dama, a ƙarshe ya tabbatar da kasancewar Mahalicci Mai hikima, Masani ga kome, wanda ya halicci duniya. A cikin littafinsa There is a God, ya bayyana irin zurfin tasirin da wannan hujja ta yi a kansa, wanda ya sa shi barin musun Allah: ‘Duk da cewa a wani lokaci na soki hujjar tsari sosai, tun daga lokacin na fahimci cewa, idan an tsara ta yadda ya kamata, wannan hujja tana kafa dalili mai gamsarwa na kasancewar Allah. Ci gaba a fannoni biyu musamman ne suka kai ni ga wannan ƙarshe. Na farko shi ne tambayar asalin dokokin halitta da fahimtar da manyan masana kimiyyar zamani suka bayar game da hakan. Na biyu shi ne tambayar asalin rayuwa da haihuwa.’255 Wannan hujja ta tilasta ko da mafi tsananin masu musun Allah su yarda cewa tana ɗaya daga cikin mafi kyawun hujjojin da masu imani suka gabatar.

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.

Hujjar Gaaya (teleological argument) ta dogara ne akan waɗannan gabatarwa (propositions):

The teleological argument is based on the following propositions:

Mataki na farko: Duniyar da muke gani kuma muke rayuwa a cikinta an halicce ta da fasaha mai kyau kuma cikakkiya. Alamomin kulawa da tsarin Allah a cikinta a bayyane suke.

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

• Hujja ta biyu: Wannan kwarewa mai cikakken iko tana nuna cewa akwai wani Mai Hikima, Masani Mai Komai, wanda Ya halicce shi a wannan siffa.

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

Kammalawa: Allah ne Mai hikima, Masani, Mahalicci wanda ya halicci sararin duniya.

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

Hujja kuma za a iya gina ta ne bisa tsarin kawarwa: a fara lissafa dukkan yuwuwar abubuwa, sannan a cire waɗanda ba su yiwuwa. Maganar nan ita ce cewa duniya an halicce ta da fasaha mai ban mamaki kuma cikakkiya. Yuwuwar da ke iya zama haka guda uku ne.

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. Ya bayyana ne sakamakon ƙaddarar sanadi da sakamako (causal determinism). ii. Ya bayyana ne ba zato ba tsammani, ta hanyar kwatsam (coincidence).

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

iii. Ya bayyana ta hanyar wani Mahalicci Mai hikima kuma Mai nufi.

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

Ta hanyar watsar da zaɓi na farko da na biyu (wanda za a tattauna cikin cikakken bayani nan ba da jimawa ba), zaɓi ɗaya tilo da ya rage shi ne na uku.

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

Idan mutum ya yi tunani a kan batun ƙwarewa da kamalar da ke cikin wannan duniya, ya kuma duba abubuwan al'ajabi da kyawunta, zai ga cewa wannan hujja tana nan a yalwace a ko'ina cikin duniyar da muke rayuwa a cikinta. Duniya cike take da kyawawan al'amura masu ban sha'awa na kyau, girma, da kamala. Masanin kimiyyar lissafi mai ƙin Allah, Steven Weinberg, ya ce: ‘Dole ne in yarda cewa wani lokaci yanayi yana da kyau fiye da yadda ake buƙata.’256 Ya isa a ce, da ba a sami wannan kyau da kamala cikin yalwa ba, da mun kasance a cikin wata duniya daban gaba ɗaya – kuma duniyarmu za ta zama wuri mai wahalar zama.

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.

Wannan yawan shaidu na ƙwararriyar halittar duniya ya yi tasiri sosai wajen yaduwar hujjar teleological da sauƙin amfani da ita. A gaskiya, wannan yawan yana sa ta dace da mutane iri-iri, domin mutane suna iya bambanta sosai dangane da iyawarsu ta fahimta da yin tunani a kan alamomin tsari mai hikima a cikin halitta. Haka kuma saboda mutane suna bambanta ta fuskar gogewarsu ta tunani da ilimi. Duk lokacin da kayan aikin hankali a cikin mutum suka fi yawa kuma sun fi girma, zai samu basira game da zurfin wani gini mara aibi wanda wanda ba shi da waɗannan kayan aikin ba zai iya samu ba. Asalin wannan ikon yana cikin dukkan mutane muddin fiṭrah ɗinsu da hankalinsu ba su lalace ba. Bayan haka, suna iya bambanta wajen iya yin tunani mai zurfi – wanda ibada ce – haka kuma suna iya bambanta wajen tasirin da tunanin zai yi a kansu. A cikin rubuce-rubucen gargajiya, a neman fahimtar Mahalicci da zurfafa sanin Shi da cikakkun siffofinsa, akwai amsa mai alaƙa da imani wadda ke magana kan tunani. Ɗaya daga cikin mafi kyawun rubuce-rubuce a kan haka shi ne abin da Imam Ibnul-Qayyim ya rubuta a littattafansa Shifā’ al-ʿAlīl da Miftāḥ Dār al-Saʿādah, inda ya yi bincike mai zurfi kan wannan batu yana neman hikimar Allah a bangarori da dama na halittarsa, yana bayyana cikar saninsa a bayyanar tsari mai kyau da cikakke da aka sanya a cikin halitta. Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī ma yana da wata risala a kan wannan batu mai suna al-Ḥikmah fī Makhlūqāt Allah.

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.

Ra'ayi na farko: Daidaita-daidaiton duniya.

First concept: The fine-tuning of the universe.

Wata dabarar kimiyya da za a iya amfani da ita wajen gano tsarin sararin duniya mai cikakken daidaito shi ne abin da ake kira daidaitawar sararin duniya (fine-tuning of the universe). Wannan ra'ayi ya fara bayyana ne a cikin wata takarda da masanin kimiyyar lissafi Brandon Carter ya rubuta a shekarar 1974, mai taken ‘Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology’. Aiki na gaba da ya fito a kan wannan batu shi ne na Bernard Carr da Martin Rees a shekarar 1979, mai suna ‘The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world’, sannan ya biyo baya da littafin nan na gargajiya mai cikakken bayani The Anthropic Cosmological Principle na John Barrow da Frank Tipler a shekarar 1986. Bayan haka, an sami rubuce-rubuce da yawa a kan wannan batu, dukansu suna ɗauke da tushe iri ɗaya.

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.

Babban ginshiƙin wannan magana shi ne cewa idan mutum ya yi tunani a kan halittar duniya, zai ga cewa akwai ƙayyadaddun dokoki da ma'auni masu daidaituwa sosai da aka kafa domin rayuwa ta wanzu. Har ma wasu daga cikin waɗannan dokoki suna da daidaito mai laushi har wanzuwar dukkan duniya ta dogara a kansu, kuma duk wani rashin daidaito a kowane ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan ma'auni zai kai ga halaka ta ƙarshe. Girman ƙwarewa da aka nuna wajen halittar duniya ba ya tsaya ga halittu masu rai kaɗai ko wannan duniya mai ban mamaki da muke rayuwa a cikinta ba. Wannan ƙwarewa tana kai har ga dokoki da ma'aunin da suke tafiyar da wannan duniya. Waɗannan ma'auni tarin bayanan lamba ne da aka zaɓa da kyau sosai, ta yadda idan suka karkata zuwa kowane gefe ko da ɗan kaɗan, tsarin rayuwa gaba ɗaya, har ma da dukkan duniya kanta, zai ɓace. Wanzuwar duniya tana da alaƙa da waɗannan lambobi masu muhimmanci. Stephen C. Meyer, wanda ya kafa kuma shugaban Discovery Institute, ya bayyana haka da misali: "Ka yi tunanin cewa kai mai bincike ne na sararin samaniya wanda ya faɗa cikin ɗakin sarrafawa na dukkan duniya. A can ka gano wata injin halittar duniya mai sarƙaƙiya, mai layuka da layuka na maɓallai, kowanne da saituna masu yawa. Yayin da kake bincike, ka koyi cewa kowane maɓalli yana wakiltar wani takamaiman siffa wadda dole ne a daidaita ta da ƙima ta musamman domin a halicci duniya inda rayuwa za ta iya wanzuwa. Maɓalli ɗaya yana wakiltar saitunan ƙarfin nukiliya mai ƙarfi, wani na nauyi, wani na ma'aunin Planck, wani na rabon nauyin neutron da na proton, wani na ƙarfin jan hankalin lantarki, da sauransu. Yayin da kai, mai binciken sararin samaniya, kake duba maɓallan, ka ga cewa za a iya daidaita su zuwa saituna daban-daban cikin sauƙi. Haka kuma, ta hanyar lissafi mai zurfi, ka tabbatar da cewa idan kowane saiti ya canja ko da ɗan kaɗan, rayuwa za ta daina wanzuwa." Duk da haka, saboda wasu dalilai kowane maɓalli an saita shi a daidai ƙimar da ake buƙata don ci gaba da tafiyar duniya. Me kuke fahimta game da asalin waɗannan saitunan maɓallan da aka daidaita da kyau?

Idan muka yi tunani a kan karfin jan hankalin Duniya, ikonta a kanmu, da yadda take jan mu zuwa kasa, sai mu ji cewa akwai wani karfi mai girma wanda babu hanyar tserewa daga gare shi. Duk da haka, idan aka kwatanta shi da sauran karfin halitta, sai ya zama kamar yana da rauni sosai. A zahiri, ya fi karfin nukiliya mai karfi rauni sau 1036. Raunin karfin jan hankali idan aka kwatanta da sauran karfin halitta yana daya daga cikin muhimman abubuwa a cikin daidaitawa mai matukar daidaito da ake bukata domin rayuwa. A cikin mujallar New Scientist, a cikin makalar mai take ‘Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?’, an rubuta cewa: ‘Rauni na karfin jan hankali abu ne da ya kamata mu gode masa. Da ace ya fi kadan karfi, babu wanda daga cikinmu da zai kasance a nan yana yi masa dariya saboda yanayinsa maras karfi.’258

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

Ma'aunin nauyi na duniya (gravitational constant) ya kasance an daidaita shi sosai kuma daidai gwargwado – da a ce ya karkata ko da da 1060 ne, da ba za mu wanzu ba. Don fahimta, duba 257 Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, p. 57.

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.

Yaya kunkuntar wannan kewayon da ke ba da damar rayuwa, ka yi tunanin kana da na'ura mai daidaita abubuwa ko ma'aunin juyawa mai bugun digiri. Sannan ka raba digiri na wannan ma'auni zuwa 1060 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

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

Ba a sani ba ne cewa za a iya kwatanta lissafin irin wannan da mutum yana zaɓar lamba ɗaya daga cikin biliyoyin lamba, sannan ya ce ba a sami wata matsala ba. Ka yi tunanin cewa kana da wani ɗan tsani na kayan aiki da yawa, kuma kana neman ƙima ɗaya ta musamman. Idan ka ɗauki ma'aunin tsawon sararin duniya ka auna shi daga wannan gefe zuwa wancan, sannan ka auna ƙarfin nauyi na Duniya ka sanya wannan ƙima a kan wannan ma'auni, to idan kuskure ya kai inci ɗaya kawai, za a samu wani babban al'amari. Hakan zai sa mutum ya yi tunanin cewa wannan daidaito ya samu ne ta ilimi, ba ta hanyar sa'a kawai ba.

Wannan ita ce karfin da ke da alhakin kwanciyar hankalin abubuwa ta hanyar riƙe protons da neutrons tare a cikin tsakiyar atom, don haka ya samar da tsakiyar atom (atomic nuclei). Dukkan protons, kamar yadda muka sani, suna ɗauke da cajin positive; abin da ke ba su damar zama cikin kwanciyar hankali a cikin tsakiyar atom – ba tare da an kore su ba – shi ne karfin nukiliya mai ƙarfi (strong nuclear force). Kamar ƙoƙarin haɗa magnets biyu masu sanda iri ɗaya ne – yin haka zai kai ga koma baya (repulsion). Duk da haka, idan ƙarfin da ke ƙoƙarin haɗa su ya fi ƙarfi, zai yiwu a shawo kan koma bayan. Karfin nukiliya mai ƙarfi kuma yana daidaitawa cikin tsari mai matuƙar daidaito. Da ya kasance mai rauni da kashi 2%, atom-atom na hydrogen da sun yi koma baya, ba za su taɓa iya haɗuwa da sauran sinadarai ba, suna barin duniya cikin yanayin da babu komai sai atom-atom na hydrogen suna yawo. Akasin haka, da wannan karfi ya kasance mai ƙarfi da kashi 2%, atom-atom na hydrogen da sun haɗu da juna cikin sauri har su zama duka helium, wanda da ya zama sinadarin da ya fi yawa a faɗin duniya. Akwai daidaito mai ban mamaki a cikin wannan karfi: Wasu atom-atom na hydrogen suna haɗuwa su zama atom-atom na helium, yayin da sauran hydrogen ɗin ke ci gaba da samar da sauran sinadaran duniya, kamar haɗuwa da oxygen don samar da ruwa. Zai yi wuya a yi tunanin wata rayuwa ba tare da wannan daidaito cikakke na wannan karfi ba. Abin da aka faɗa game da karfin nukiliya mai ƙarfi yana aiki daidai da karfin nukiliya mai rauni (weak nuclear force), da kuma karfin electromagnetic. Tare da nauyi (gravity) da karfin nukiliya mai ƙarfi, su ne karfin guda huɗu da ke daidaita duniya. Dukkansu huɗun suna daidaita sosai, har idan ɗaya daga cikinsu zai canja ko da kaɗan, rayuwa ba za ta iya wanzuwa ba. Misalan da ke nuna daidaitawa mai kyau sun yi yawa har ba za a iya ambatan su duka ba. Za a iya karantawa da lura da su a cikin littattafan da ke magana kan wannan abin al'ajabi. Wasu daga cikin ayyukan da ke zuwa a rai dangane da haka sun haɗa da Just Six Numbers na Martin Rees, Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Fit for Life? na Rodney Holder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom na Gerald Schroeder, A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology na Alister McGrath, The Goldilocks Enigma na Paul Davies, da God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science na Neil Manson. A zahiri, mafi yawan rubuce-rubucen Yammacin duniya da suka binciki wannan hujja suna nuna misalai iri-iri don tabbatar da cewa duniya, dokokinta, da ma'aunanta an daidaita su sosai. Abin al'ajabi game da wannan yanayi na daidaitawa shi ne, da wasu daga cikin waɗannan ƙarfi ba su kasance inda suke daidai ba, da duniya ta daina wanzuwa kamar yadda muka sani tun dā. Wasu ƙarfi an daidaita su ta yadda ya ba da damar samuwar taurari, duniyoyi, da kwayoyin halitta. Wasu ƙarfin kuma an daidaita su sosai har an kafa su kawai don maraba da mutum. Wannan batu na ƙarshe shi ne abin da ake kira ka'idar anthropic. Akwai wani saitin bayanai game da yanayin wannan duniya wanda da ya sa ta zama marar dacewa da rayuwa idan da ta bambanta. Masanin falsafa ɗan Burtaniya Antony Flew ya zana hoton wannan hujja da fasaha a littafinsa There is a God.

Dangane da ra'ayin masu kafircin da ba su yarda da Allah ba cewa sararin duniya, a zahiri, ya kasance yana kan hanyar zuwa inda yake a yanzu, to wannan ba lallai ba ne haka. Wannan ita ce matsayar yawancin masana kimiyyar lissafi, kamar Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, George Ellis, da wasu. Misali, Davies ya ce: ‘Ingantacciyar ka'idar komai dole ne ta bayyana ba kawai yadda sararin duniyarmu ya fara wanzuwa ba, har ma dalilin da ya sa ita ce kawai irin sararin duniya da za a iya samu – dalilin da ya sa dokokin zahiri guda ɗaya ne kawai za su iya kasancewa.’264

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

Matsayin masu tsara ƙaddara wanda ke ikirarin cewa waɗannan ma'auni dole ne su bayyana, yana kai ga matsayin cewa zai zama ba zai yiwu ba a samu wata duniya da babu rayuwa a cikinta, kuma cewa samuwar duniya a wannan yanayi mai matuƙar daidaito an ƙaddara ta kuma koyaushe za ta faru. Wannan yana saɓa wa gaskiya: Dukkan bayanai sun nuna cewa yuwuwar samuwar duniya kamar tamu, wadda za ta iya tallafa wa rayuwa, ƙarama ce ƙwarai idan aka kwatanta da yuwuwar dubban-dubatar duniyoyi marasa rayuwa. Babu ko alamar shaida da ke nuna cewa dole ne waɗannan ma'auni su kasance koyaushe a wannan hanya. Hakika, wasu masana kimiyya suna magana game da wata ka'ida da ba a gano ta ba har yanzu. Ana kiranta 'ka'idar komai' (TOE). Tana neman bayar da ka'idar da ke haɗa ƙarfin halitta guda huɗu zuwa doka ɗaya, wanda zai sauƙaƙa abubuwa da yawa a kimiyyar kiyayya. Binciken wannan ka'ida ya fara tun zamanin Einstein, wanda ya ce, 'Abin da ke sha'awata da gaske shi ne ko Allah zai iya halicci duniya ta wata hanya dabam.' Tabbas, ƙoƙarinsa a wannan fanni bai kai ga nasara ba. 'Ka'idar kirtani' ci gaba ce ta ƙoƙarin neman TOE. Mafi shahara a yau – wadda ke kan gaba a waɗannan muhawarori kuma ita ce babbar ka'ida – ita ce abin da ake kira 'ka'idar M', wadda ke neman haɗa dukkan sigogi masu daidaito na ka'idar kirtani ƙarƙashin doka ɗaya. Irin waɗannan zato su ne mafita ta tsohuwa ga wasu mutane waɗanda ke son bayyana dalilin da ya sa dokokin duniya da ma'aunanta suke yadda suke. Victor Stenger ya ce, 'Masana kimiyyar kiyayya da yawa suna tsammanin cewa daga ƙarshe za a gano ka'idar komai (TOE) wadda za ta haɗa da ƙididdige dukkan sigoginta. A wancan lokaci, babu abin da zai rage a daidaita shi.'265

Mun bar amsar wannan ga Weinberg:

We leave the answer to this to Weinberg:

Ba zato ba ne kawai hasashe ba ne. Ka'idar da za ta ba da wannan hasashen lissafi ba ta wanzu tukuna, i, amma yana yiwuwa. Madadin wannan kuma ba bayani ba ne, domin ba mu da wata ka'ida mai takara. Bayanin da ya zama kamar yana aiki shi ne cewa wannan abu ne da ke bambanta daga sub-universe zuwa sub-universe, daga Big Bang zuwa Big Bang. A yawancin Big Bang-ukan, ya fi girma sosai fiye da abin da muke gani. A cikin waɗannan Big Bang-ukan, suna wucewa saboda wannan makamashi yana tuƙa faɗaɗa duniya, ya danganta da ko yana da kyau ko mara kyau. A cikin duniyar da take fashewa cikin sauri, babu lokacin da taurari ko taurarin galaxy za su samu, ko kuma tana murkushewa ko sake rushewa cikin sauri, don haka babu lokacin rayuwa ta samu. Saboda haka dole ne ya zama ƙarami domin rayuwa ta wanzu, kuma yana da ƙanƙanta kusan kamar yadda ya kamata ya kasance don bada damar rayuwa ta taso. Abin sha'awa shi ne ba shi da ƙanƙanta sosai fiye da yadda zai zama dole ya kasance, kuma dole ne ya zama aƙalla 10^56, ko kuma idan kana ganin kana da wani ra'ayi game da sauye-sauye a ƙananan nisa, zaka ce aƙalla 10^120. Hakika, wannan ya ɗan dame hankali.271

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 ya ce, Ƙaramin karkacewa daga ƙarfin da ake buƙata yana haifar da bala'in sararin samaniya, kamar ƙwallon wuta da ke rushewa saboda nauyinta, ko kuma sararin samaniya ya zama kusan babu komai… Wannan shi ne mafi shahara kuma mafi ban mamaki misali na daidaitawa mai ƙarfi a fannin kimiyyar lissafi. Leonard Susskind, masanin ka'idar kirtani wanda ba shi da addini, kamar yadda Vilenkin shi ma yake, ya rubuta a cikin kasidarsa mai suna Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant cewa idan ba a daidaita wannan ma'auni ba, to za a buƙaci "abubuwan al'ajabi bisa ƙididdiga" domin sararin samaniyarmu ya zama mai iya ba da damar rayuwa. Ya yi hasashen cewa, saboda haka, yana yiwuwa wani wakili wanda ba a sani ba ne ya tsara yanayin farko na sararin samaniyar da muke gani a yau.272

Wani ra'ayi da masanin kimiyyar halittu Dr. Michael Behe na Jami'ar Lehigh da ke Pennsylvania ya kirkira shi ne 'rashin rarrabuwar sarkakiya' (irreducible complexity). Ya rubuta shi a cikin shahararren littafinsa Darwin's Black Box, a cikin babin da aka sanya wa suna iri ɗaya. Rashin rarrabuwar sarkakiya shi ne ra'ayin cewa abubuwan sarkaka da suka haɗu wadanda ke buƙatar sassa masu aiki tare cikin jituwa, dole ne an yi su haka nan a lokaci guda; idan wani sashi ya makara a cikin juyin halitta, to tsarin dukkan irin wadannan abubuwan zai rushe. Wannan yana tabbatar da cewa dole ne akwai mai zane wanda ya samar da wadannan abubuwa a lokaci guda. Saboda haka, domin kowane tsarin halitta ya yi aiki yadda ya kamata, dole ne ya kasance yana da abubuwa uku.

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. Dole ne duk sassansa su kasance tare.

1. All its constituent parts must be present.

Dole ne dukkan sassansa su kasance tare a lokaci guda.

2. All its constituent parts must be present simultaneously.

3. Dukkan sassansa na ciki dole su haɗu da juna cikin tsari daidai kuma mai jituwa. Ra'ayin da ke cewa duniya abu ne da ya faru ba da gangan ba yana kan hanya mai cike da matsaloli kafin ya iya samun waɗannan sharuɗɗa uku. Wannan kai tsaye yana nufin cewa akwai mai zane wanda ya ƙera waɗannan abubuwa cikin tsari da daidaiton da suka yi, kuma ba su samu ta hanyar abin da masu kafirci ke kira dokokin yanayi marasa hankali ba, ko sauye-sauyen gado na bazata, ko tsarin zaɓin yanayi daga sifofi na farko har suka zama halittu masu sarƙaƙiya da suke yanzu. Wannan matsayi yana kai ga rage abubuwa zuwa sauƙi da kuma ɗaukar abubuwa a matsayin masu sauƙi fiye da yadda suke, wanda ya saɓa wa ka'idar juyin halitta wadda ke ɗauka cewa duk wani tsarin halitta mai sarƙaƙiya ya samu ci gaba daga sifofi masu sauƙi zuwa sauƙi, har zuwa sifarsa ta farko kuma mafi sauƙi. Idan abubuwa suna iya a rage su haka, hakan zai nuna kai tsaye cewa an halicce su gaba ɗaya a lokaci ɗaya. Saboda haka, ra'ayin mai zane shi ne amsa mafi hankali ga tambayar yadda muka samu wanzuwa. A cikin littafinsa, Behe ya ambaci misalai da dama daga duniyar halitta da suke nuna waɗannan abubuwa. Shahararren kuma mafi fitaccen misali na sarƙaƙiyar da ba za a iya raba ta ba shi ne flagellum na ƙwayar cuta. Wannan ƙwayar cuta tana da wata injin ƙwayoyin halitta mai juyawa, wanda ke ba ta damar motsi cikin ruwa cikin sauƙi. Wutsiyarta ta ƙunshi sassan furotin guda 40 daban-daban. Idan ɗaya daga cikinsu bai kasance a kowane lokaci ba, ƙwayar cutar za ta rasa aiki. Wannan yana nuna cewa halitta ce mai sarƙaƙiya wadda ba za a iya raba ta ba, wadda ba za ta iya wucewa ta hanyar juyin halitta ba, sai dai ta bayyana a cikin yanayi a lokaci ɗaya. Tsarin irin su flagellum na ƙwayoyin cuta (bacterial flagellum) sun fi sauƙi kuma su fi dacewa a yi bayaninsu da cewa sun samu wanzuwa ta hannun Mahaliccin mai iko da zaɓi wanda ya ƙirƙire su haka, ba cewa sun ci gaba a hankali ta hanyar zaɓin halitta (natural selection) ko sauyin gado a hankali ba kamar yadda tsarin Darwin na asali ya ce. Wannan misali ɗaya ne kawai. Akwai wasu misalai da yawa. 'Misali, a shekarar 1998 mujallar nan ta kimiyya mai daraja, Cell, ta buga wani bugu na musamman mai taken "Macromolecular Machines" (Injunan Macromolecular). Injunan kwayoyin halitta (molecular machines) na'urori ne masu sarkakiya ƙwarai da duk ƙwayoyin halitta ke amfani da su wajen sarrafa bayanai, gina sunadarai (proteins), da motsa abubuwa zuwa ciki da waje ta cikin membranes ɗinsu. Bruce Alberts, Shugaban Kwalejin Kimiyya ta Ƙasa (National Academy of Sciences), ya gabatar da wannan bugu da wata kasida mai taken "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" (Ƙwayar Halitta a Matsayin Tarin Injunan Sunadarai). A cikinta ya ce: "Koyaushe mun raina ƙwayoyin halitta... Dukkan ƙwayar halitta za a iya kallonta a matsayin masana'anta da ke ɗauke da wata hanyar sadarwa mai haɗe-haɗe ta layukan haɗa kaya, kowanne daga cikinsu an ƙera shi ne da jerin manyan injunan sunadarai... Me ya sa muke kiran manyan haɗe-haɗen sunadarai da ke tushen aikin ƙwayar halitta da injunan sunadarai? Saboda, kamar injunan da ɗan adam ya ƙirƙira don magance duniyar zahiri cikin inganci, waɗannan haɗe-haɗen sunadarai suna ɗauke da sassa masu motsi waɗanda aka daidaita su sosai." Ƙwayar halitta duniya ce ta kanta, cike da tsare-tsare da hanyoyi iri-iri. Kowane ɗaya an yi shi ne a wata hanya ta musamman kuma yana gudanar da aikinsa. Gabaɗaya, waɗannan tsare-tsare da hanyoyi suna taka rawa a rayuwar wannan ƙwayar halitta.

Lokacin da James Watson da Francis Crick suka gano tsarin helix biyu na DNA, sun iya warware wani sirri na rayuwa. Duk da haka, hakan ya kai ga wani sirri kuma. Yanayin bayanan da ke cikin lambar halitta wani sirri ne da ya dami masana kimiyya. Mutane da yawa sun yi ƙoƙarin bayyana yawan bayanan halittu masu ban mamaki da ke cikin ƙwayoyin halitta ta hanyar ƙunƙunyar fahimta ta falsafar kayan abu game da duniya, wadda ba ta amince da wani bayani a wajen iyakar ikonta ba. Lallai, ga alama zai yi wuya ga kimiyyanci ya bayyana wannan. Ta hanyar gano tsarin lambar halitta, Watson da Crick sun iya bayyana wani babban ma'adanin bayanai a cikin DNA, wanda ake bayyanawa ta hanyar tushe huɗu da haruffan sinadarai huɗu: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) da thymine (T). Waɗannan tushe huɗu ana tsara su cikin takamaiman siffofi, domin adanawa da watsa jerin umarnin halitta na yin sunadarai da sauran enzymes domin ƙwayoyin halitta su ci gaba da rayuwa. A shekarar 1955, Crick ya yi hasashen cewa sinadaran da ke cikin DNA suna aiki kamar haruffan harshe wajen gina jumloli, ko kuma yadda lamba ke aiki wajen ƙirƙirar shirye-shiryen kwamfuta. A wasu kalmomi, kamar yadda ake haɗa shirye-shiryen kwamfuta domin yin takamaiman ayyuka, haka ma wannan jerin ake haɗa shi a cikin nucleotides domin yin takamaiman aiki, abin da ake kira tsarin shirye-shirye. Abin lura, Dawkins ya yarda: ‘Lambar injin ƙwayoyin halitta tana kama da ta kwamfuta sosai. Banda bambance-bambance a harshen fasaha, shafukan mujallar ilimin halittu na kwayoyin halitta za a iya musanya su da na mujallar injiniyan kwamfuta.’290 Bill Gates, wanda ya kafa Microsoft, shi ma ya bayyana haka: ‘DNA na ɗan adam kamar shirin kwamfuta yake, amma ya fi ci gaba sosai fiye da kowace software da aka taɓa ƙirƙira.’291

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

Bayan kammala tattaunawa kan hujja ta biyu ta hankali akan wanzuwar Allah – hujjar tsari da tsarkin tsari (systemisation and immaculateness) – yanzu muna gabatar da manyan suka da aka yi mata. Wadannan suka sun shafi duka gabatarwarta da kuma sakamakonta.

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.

Hujja ta farko: Kyawun tsari kawai hasashe ne Wannan hujja ce mai ban mamaki. Na taba haduwa da masu kafirci da suke kin ganin alamun kyawun tsari da girma a cikin wannan duniya, kowannensu da wani mataki da kuma dalilai daban-daban. Wasu suna shakkar ko duniya an yi ta ne da kyakkyawan tsari tun farko, suna ganin cewa irin wannan da'awa hasashe ne kawai na mutum a kan sararin samaniya. Suna cewa karatun da muke yi na duniya yana ba mu wannan ruɗi, ko da yake ba shi da wata ma'ana ta zahiri a cikin duniyar kanta. A wata ma'anar, kyawun tsarin da ke kewaye da mu ba lallai ne yana nufin an yi wani aikin gini mai kyau ba. Misali, idan muka ga aikin sassaka na mutum, za mu yaba da yanayin ginin da aka yi. Bayan haka, mu da muke kallon wannan abu mutane ne kamar shi. Idan aka ɗauka cewa wani halitta bai taba ganin mutum ba a dukkan rayuwarsa, zai iya wucewa ta gaban wannan sassaka ba tare da ganin wata alamar kyawun tsari a cikinsa ba; mai yiwuwa zai ɗauka cewa dutse ne kawai na yau da kullum, ko dutsen da ruwan sama ya lalata kaɗan, ba tare da ya yi tunanin cewa wani mai ra'ayi ne ya sassaƙa shi ba. Haka kuma, idan mutum ya ga harrufan wani harshe da rubutun da bai fahimta ba, zai iya ɗauka cewa rubuce-rubuce ne kawai na bazata. Saboda haka, ganin wata ma'ana a cikinsu zai zama hasashe ne da mutum ya yi musu. Ina tunanin irin waɗannan ra'ayoyi an iyakance su ga maganganun masana falsafa na gefe, kamar na masanin falsafar kafirci Baron d'Holbach (d. 1789), ba su yawo a cikin falsafar kafirci ta zamani ba. Sai dai bayan na karanta wasu daga cikin wannan a rubuce-rubuce na zamani, da kuma wasu tattaunawa da haduwa da na yi da kaina, sai na fahimci cewa irin wannan hujja har yanzu tana cikin amfani. Gaskiya ita ce wannan hujja tana da ban mamaki sosai, domin ta ƙunshi taurin kai mai girma da kuskure mai ban mamaki. A zahiri, misalan da aka kawo a nan suna bayyana kuskuren kansu. Nahutar dutsen da wani ɗan wasan kwaikwayo mai son yi ya sassaƙa shi, da kuma tsarin haruffa da rubutun wani takamaiman harshe, suna nuna ƙwarewa a matsayin gaskiya ta zahiri a cikin waɗannan al'amura; hankali da ilimi ne ke kai ga gano wannan gaskiyar. Saboda haka duk wani tsari na ƙwarewa da ke wanzuwa a cikin duniya, zai ci gaba da ƙara mana gogewa da ilimi. Wannan tsari na gano abubuwa zai ci gaba muddin gogewa da ilimi suna ci gaba da bayarwa. Irin wannan tunani babu shakka yana kai mutum ga musanta duk wata gaskiya ta zahiri. Idan mutum yana shakkar ko wani tsari mai sarƙaƙiya zai iya bayar da ilimi, sannan ya guji irin wannan tunanin bisa uzurin cewa duk wani hukunci na wannan nau'i dangi ne kawai, kuma babu wata gaskiya ta zahiri a cikinsa, to zai ƙare da zama mai shakkar komai da ke kewaye da shi, domin zai yiwu ma komai ba komai ba ne face hasashe, babu wata ƙima ta zahiri da ta rabu da shi. Wannan yana kawar da duk wata ƙima ta zahiri daga tunanin ɗan adam, yana mayar da shi zuwa sanin dangi kawai wanda ke ƙarƙashin shakka, wanda zai iya jefa mai irin wannan falsafa cikin wani nau'in yaudara ta hankali. Gaskiyar ita ce waɗannan masu shakka ba sa yin hali haka a rayuwarsu ta yau da kullum, domin hakan ya saɓa wa fiɗrah ta ɗan adam mai kyau, kuma domin sakamakonsa zai kai ga rushe duk wata hujja ta binciken duniya da mu'amala da ita.

Wani muhimmin littafi ga Sabbin Masu Musun Allah (New Atheists) a muhawarar kan batun cewa duniya an daidaita ta da tsari mai matuƙar daidaito shi ne na masanin kimiyyar lissafi mai musun Allah, Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Shi ma shi ne marubucin God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, wanda littafi ne mai muhimmanci a cikin Sabon Musun Allah. Manufar da ke bayan littafin The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning a bayyane take daga taken sa. Yana ƙoƙarin karyata ra'ayin da ya fi yaɗuwa cewa duniya tana da matuƙar daidaito – har ma a matakin sigogin sararin samaniya (cosmological constants) da al'amuranta – kuma cewa wanzuwarmu ba za ta yiwu ba in ba don wannan daidaituwa ta musamman ba. Wannan ra'ayi yana yaɗuwa a cikin ayyukan masana kimiyya da yawa, duka masu imani da masu musun Allah. A zahiri, Stenger da kansa ya ce, "Ko masana kimiyyar lissafi masu musun Allah suna ganin wannan abin da ake kira "ƙa'idar ɗan adam" (anthropic principle) yana da wahalar bayanawa ta hanyar halitta, kuma da yawa suna ganin sai sun yi kira ga sammai da yawa don bayanin sa."298

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

Gaskiya ne cewa jerin mutanen da suka yi imani da daidaitawar sararin duniya (fine-tuning) yana da tsawo kuma ya ƙunshi sunaye da yawa, waɗanda kowannensu yana bayyana yadda wannan al'amari ya samu ta hanyoyi daban-daban. Waɗannan mutane sune: 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, da wasu da yawa.299 A cikin littafinsa, Stenger ya zaɓi wasu nassoshi daga masana kimiyya waɗanda ke nuna mamakinsu game da wannan al'amari na daidaitawa mai tsananin daidaito:

Wata matsayi ce da ke nuna wani irin musantawa – ko da yake ba cikakkiyar musantawa ba – ga hujjar daidaitawar sararin duniya (fine-tuning). Wannan matsayi ya yarda cewa duniya tana cikin daidaito mai tsanani, amma ya ce ita kanta tana da ƙanƙanta a cikin faffadan sararin samaniya, kuma mafi yawan sararin ba shi da amfani ga rayuwa. Suna cewa: ‘Yaya zai zama daidai a ce an daidaita duniya da kyau kuma da hankali alhali kashi 99.9999999999% na wannan duniya babu kowa a cikinta kuma bai dace da rayuwa ba?’ Wannan ƙin yarda ne da na yi ji akai-akai daga Christopher Hitchens. A zahiri, lokacin da Richard Dawkins, a cikin shahararren zaman tattaunawarsa a bidiyon The Four Horsemen, ya amince cewa hujjar daidaitawa ita ce hujja mafi ƙarfi ga masu imani da Allah, sai Hitchens ya katse shi ya gabatar da wannan ƙin yarda iri ɗaya. Richard Carrier ya bayyana wannan batu yana cewa: ‘A gaskiya, idan mun sanya dukkan wofin sararin samaniya mai kisa, cike da hasken rediyo mai mutuwa, a cikin wuri girman gida, ba za ka taba samun ƙaramin wurin da ya ke ɗauke da rayuwa ba (zai zama ƙarami fiye da kwayar proton guda ɗaya).’314

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

Akwai abubuwa guda biyu da ya kamata a lura da su wajen amsa wannan hujja. Na farko, wannan hanyar gabatar da hujjar tana ɓatarwa. Ra'ayin daidaitawa mai kyau (fine-tuning) yana nufin cewa duniyar da muke ciki tana da rai, duk da yiwuwar kasancewar wasu duniyoyi masu yawa waɗanda ba su dace da rai ba, har ma da ƙaramin ɗan ɓangare mai girman ƙwayar ƙura a cikin gida. Wannan matsayi ne mai matuƙar ban mamaki – kamar yadda masana kimiyyar lissafi da kansu suka yarda, bisa ga misalan da suke bayarwa. Matsayi ne da ya cancanci a amince da shi a matsayin haka, kuma dalilin kasancewarsa ya kamata a bincika. Saboda haka, tambayar a nan ba ita ce dalilin da ya sa akwai babban wofi a cikin sararin duniya ba, sai dai dalilin da ya sa ake iya samun rai a cikin duniya duk da yiwuwar rashin samunsa mai girma. Don haka, kasancewar wannan matakin na daidaitawa – ko da yake ƙarami ne idan aka kwatanta da sauran duniya – ya isa ya tabbatar da alamar da ake buƙata na kasancewar Allah, ko da kuwa wannan matakin daidaitawa ba ya nan a wasu wurare. Misali yana kama da wani mutum da ya umurci 'ya'yansa su tsara da kuma tsaftace wani gida da bandaki mai matuƙar ƙazanta. Idan ya dawo, sai ya ga cewa an tsaftace ƙaramin ɓangare na gidan. Shin zai yiwu a ƙaryata cewa wannan ƙaramin ɓangare ba wani ne ya tsaftace shi ba, kawai saboda sauran gidan har yanzu cike yake da rikici?

Wata hujja mai shakka da ake amfani da ita wajen kokarin jefa shakku a kan daidaito da kyautatuwar tsarin duniya ita ce cewa mu muna sanin wannan duniyar da muke ciki kawai; saboda haka, babu hanyar da za mu kwatanta duniyarmu da wasu duniyoyi domin mu gano yadda aka tsara su da kwarewa – ko kuma akasin haka. Victor Stenger ya ce, ‘A lokaci guda, ban ga dalilin da zai sa mu yi kokarin tunanin duniya mai “dokoki” daban ba, domin babu irin wadannan dokoki da mu mutane muke iya samu. Sai dai idan akwai wahayi, abin da muka sani shi ne abin da muke gani, kuma mafi kyawun abin da za mu iya yi shi ne gina samfura da za su bayyana wadannan abubuwan da muke gani.’316

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

Haƙiƙa wannan ƙin yarda yana nuna wani matakin taurin kai ko jahilci game da yanayin ƙwarewar da muke magana a kai – da kuma jahilci game da yawan misalan daidaitawa mai kyau da ake iya gani a cikin duniyarmu. A kan wannan, masanin kimiyyar lissafi John Barrow ya ce, Ɗauki takarda ka sanya mata ɗigon ja. Wannan ɗigo yana wakiltar duniyarmu. Yanzu ka canza kaɗan daga cikin tsayayyun ma'auni da adadin jiki da muka mai da hankali a kansu. Sakamakon haka muna da bayanin wata duniya, wadda za mu iya wakilta da sabon ɗigo kusa da na farko. Idan wannan sabon saitin ma'auni da adadi ya bayyana duniyar da ke bada damar rayuwa, sai a mai da shi ɗigon ja; idan kuma ya bayyana duniyar da ba ta bada damar rayuwa ba...

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.

Ƙin amincewa da ra'ayoyin da ke cewa abubuwan da ake gani na ƙwarewa da cikakken tsari a wannan duniya ba lallai ba ne su samo asali daga Mai Sani duka, Mai Iko, kuma Mai Zaɓi. Waɗannan ƙin amincewa sun tabbatar da cewa yana yiwuwa waɗannan abubuwa sun samu ne sakamakon dalilai na halitta da na zahiri. Idan muka duba bayan batutuwan tsautsayi da ƙaddara a matsayin amsoshi biyu da suka dace don bayyana wannan al'amari na sarƙaƙiyar duniya saboda dalilan da aka bayyana a baya, za mu ga akwai shawarwari da yawa daga masu kafircewa Allah don bayyana wannan ƙwarewa. Waɗannan shawarwari madadin su ne manyan ƙin amincewa, kuma wasu daga cikinsu an bayyana su a ƙasa.

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.

Wannan ka'ida ita ce ta fi mamaye ilimin halittu. Ma'ana, tasirinta ya kai ga reshe-reshe da dama na akida da tunani. Dr. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Masīrī, yana bayyana yanayin al'adun Yammacin zamani, ya ce ita ce "Darwinist modernism" (zamanantarwar Darwin). Mafi kyawun misalin ra'ayin juyin halitta wanda ya saba wa ra'ayin ƙirƙirar hikima da aka sanya a cikin halittu shi ne ra'ayin da Richard Dawkins ya gabatar a littafinsa Climbing Mount Improbable. Ra'ayin yana tafiya haka: Ka yi tunanin muna kan wani dogon dutse. Gefe ɗaya yana da tsayi sosai ba za a iya hawa ba. Ɗayan gefen ma yana da tsayi, amma ba har mutane za su ji tsoron hawansa zuwa kolin ba. Saboda haka za mu iya ƙoƙarin isa kolin daga gefen da ya fi tsayi, ko da yake yana da gajeru, ko kuma mu hau daga ɗayan gefen cikin sauƙi. Duk da haka, za mu buƙaci bin hanya mafi tsawo don isa kolin. A cikin wannan misali, bari mu ɗauka cewa hadaddun tsarin halittu su ne kolin. Isa ga waɗannan tsarin daga gajeriyar hanya yana da wahala sosai, domin haɗuwar waɗannan tsarin da kanta a hankali zai zama ba zai yiwu ba. Duk da haka, waɗannan tsarin na iya haɗuwa da kansu ta hanyar zaɓin halitta, ta hanyar riƙe waɗannan halaye da za su tabbatar da rayuwarsu da ba su damar ci gaba zuwa mataki na gaba, haka kuma ga matakai na gaba – mataki-mataki – har sai mun isa kolin.

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.

Na tuna tattaunawa da wasu matasa da atheism ya rinjayi tunaninsu. Ɗaya daga cikinsu ya gabatar da wata hujja wadda take da alaƙa sosai da muhawarar da ke sama. Bayan doguwar tattaunawa, ya yarda cewa kwatsam ba shi da kyau a matsayin bayani ga bayyanar sarkakiya, tsari da ƙwarewa a rayuwarmu. Ya ce mini: "Sarkakiyar da muke gani yau a sararin samaniya da halittun masu rai ba za ta iya zuwa a lokaci ɗaya ba saboda kwatsam. Amma idan a farko duk wannan abu ya kasance mai sauƙi, sannan tare da wucewar lokaci ya canza har ya zama tsare-tsare masu sarkakiya da muke gani yanzu fa? Zai zama ba zai yiwu ba mutum, misali, ya fito daga ruwa a lokaci ɗaya saboda halayen sinadarai ba da gangan ba; amma ya fi yiwuwa cewa wata ƙwayar halitta ta samu ta hanyar kwatsam, sannan ta fara canzawa a hankali har sai halittu daban-daban – ciki har da mutum – suka bayyana." Ban da muhawara game da cikakkun bayanai, ko akwai wata ƙwayar halitta mai sauƙi a farko, ko yadda yake da kyau wanzuwar abubuwa ta bayyana ta hanyar kwatsam, ko kuma ita ce farkon dukkan rayuwa, ainihin ra'ayin juyin halitta a bayyane yake. "Mummunan ra'ayin" (kamar yadda Daniel Dennett ya bayyana a taken littafinsa) na ka'idar Charles Darwin shi ne cewa tsarin sarkakiya na iya tasowa a hankali cikin dogon lokaci – ba lallai ba ne su zo a lokaci ɗaya.

Wannan ƙin yarda yana dogara ne akan tunanin cewa sararin duniyarmu ba shi kaɗai ba ne a wanzuwa, a maimakon haka akwai sararin duniyoyi marasa ƙima ko waɗanda ba za a iya auna adadinsu ba. Wannan adadi mai girma na duniyoyi zai bayyana yadda duniyarmu take daidai kuma an tsara ta da kyau, ba tare da buƙatar a ɗauka cewa akwai mai yin nufi da ya halicci duniyarmu ba. A wata ma'ana, cikin wannan adadi mai girman gaske na duniyoyi, tabbas akwai wanda aka daidaita shi sosai dominmu. Hakan yana kama da caca: Yuwuwar mutum ya ci kyautar attajiri na biliyan yana da ƙanƙanta ƙwarai; amma yuwuwar a ce aƙalla mutum ɗaya ya ci yana da yawa. Domin ƙara bayyana ra'ayinsu, sai suka bayar da wannan misali: Ka yi tunanin an kawo wani mutum don a kashe shi. Lokacin da aka kai shi kan almara, kafin idanunsa su rufe, sai ya ga ƙwararrun masu harbi ɗari a gabansa, duk sun sanya bindigoginsu a kansa. Ya rufe idanunsa, sannan ya ji sautin harbi yayin da aka harba bindigogin. Ya riƙe numfashinsa yana tunanin zai mutu, amma bai ji komai ba. Ya taɓa jikinsa, ya lura cewa ba a same shi ko da harsashi ɗaya ba. Shin zai yiwu wannan ya faru da kansa ne kawai? Ka lura cewa masu harbin ƙwararru ne, kuma yana da matuƙar wahala dukansu su rasa manufa. Sai ya fara tunani: 'Ko dai sun yi shiri kada su kashe ni, ko kuma wani ya ba su cin hanci duk su rasa, ko kuma akwai wani dalili daban.' An cire masa ɗamara a idanu. Sai ya tabbata cewa yana tsakanin wasu mutum ɗari, kuma yawan mutanen da za a kashe su ne 101. Tabbas, a wannan yanayi, ɗaya zai rayu. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin da Stephen Hawking ya gabatar a littafinsa The Grand Design, wanda ya rubuta tare da Leonard Mlodinow. Ya ce: 'Daidaitawar dokokin yanayi za a iya bayyana ta da wanzuwar duniyoyi da yawa. Mutane da yawa a zamanai daban-daban sun danganta wa Allah kyau da sarkakiyar yanayi wadanda a lokacinsu ba su da wani bayani na kimiyya.' Amma kamar yadda Darwin da Wallace suka bayyana yadda kamannin tsari mai ban mamaki na halittu masu rai zai iya bayyana ba tare da sa hannun wani mahalicci mai iko ba, haka ra'ayin multiverse zai iya bayyana daidaiton dokokin zahiri ba tare da buƙatar wani mahalicci mai alheri wanda ya halicci duniya don amfaninmu ba.’333 Haka kuma shi ne babban ra'ayin da Dawkins ya dogara da shi a littafinsa The God Delusion yayin da yake mayar da martani ga hujjar masu imani ta daidaiton dokoki (fine-tuning).

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.

Wannan ƙin yarda yana dogara ne a kan kwatanta alamomin ƙwarewa da cewa suna tabbatar da cewa aikin Mai Sani duka da Mai Iko ne, da ayyukan mutum. Mu masu imani, idan muka ga wani abu a cikin halitta wanda aka yi shi da ƙwarewa, nan take zuciyarmu takan yi tunanin cewa wannan aikin wani mai aiki ne. Idan ba za mu iya danganta wannan aikin ga mutum ba, to za mu danganta shi ga wani mai aiki daban. Wannan ƙin yarda ya ce wannan kwatancen ba daidai ba ne. Abin da muke gani na aikin mutum mai ƙwarewa shi ne yake nuna mana cewa aikinsa na mutum ne. Amma game da halitta da duniya, ba mu ga yadda aka yi su ba, kuma ba mu ga yadda alamomin ƙwarewa suka samu siffa a cikinsu ba. Saboda haka, ba za mu iya yanke hukunci a kan abin da ba mu halarta ba.

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.

Although this objection is relatively ancient, the one who systematised it is David Hume, through his characteristic scepticism regarding the principle of causality. This scepticism has been absorbed by atheist thought to a large degree, giving rise to a multitude 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 deliberate maker exists. This illusion that we sense in ourselves comes from observing the masterful works 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 one line of objection to Paley's famous watchmaker argument holds that it is improper to analogise mastery in the universe to mastery in a watch. Although a watch is the product of 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, on the condition that this is the 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 kind of conclusion, namely 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 ya ɗauki gilashi a hannunsa ya tambayi Bassām, "Akwai wannan gilashi a gabanka. Shin wanzuwarsa ba hujja ba ce ta wanzuwar mai yinsa wanda ya yi wannan gilashi?" Bassām: "Mun san cewa wannan kofin yana wanzuwa, kuma mun san masana'antar da ta kera shi. Shin ka taba ganin abin da ya halicci duniyar da muke ciki? Shin ka taba ganin wasu duniyoyi don ka kwatanta wannan da su?"

Ƙin farko: Wane ne ya kafa ma'auna?

First objection: Who set the standards?

Mutanen da na fi ji suna maimaita wannan suka shine Richard Dawkins. Wannan suka ita ce babbar hujjar littafinsa The God Delusion. A takaice, wannan suka tana cewa: idan Allah ne Wanda Ya kafa ma'aunan duniya, to wane ne ya kafa wadannan ma'auna tun farko? Wato, idan Allah ya halicci duniya a cikakkiyar hanyar da Ya halicce ta, to wane ne ya halicci Allah? A tushe, wannan suka ta dogara ne akan sananniyar tambayar masu kafirci – 'Wane ne ya halicci Allah?' Mun tattauna ta sosai, a bangaren hujjar halitta wacce ke nuna wanzuwar Allah . Akwai amsoshi a cikinsa ga abubuwa da yawa na wannan suka. Yanayin wannan suka da Dawkins ya gabatar ya kasance, a gaskiya, sigar da ta bunkasa daga suka da ya dauka a wani wuri, wadda ta kasance suka ga hujjar tsari mai tsari na duniya da kuma yadda aka gina ta cikin kwarewa. Idan tambayar 'Wane ne ya halicci Allah?' ita ce babbar suka ga hujjar halitta, to babbar suka ga hujjar tsari mai tsari na duniya da kuma yadda aka gina ta cikin kwarewa ita ce 'Wane ne ya daidaita Mai daidaitawa?' da 'Wane ne ya tsara Mai tsarawa?' Wannan sauyi a hujjar yana dauke da karin suka a saman tambayar 'Wane ne ya halicci Allah?', kamar yadda Richard Dawkins ya bayyana: '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 Abin da yake son bayyanawa daga wannan suka shi ne: idan muna son bayani game da hadaddiyar tsari da sarkakiyar da ke cikin tsarin kwarewar Allah, to Allah da kansa ya fi duniya hadaddiya kuma ya fi sarkake; saboda haka, ba mu kara sarkakiya ba ne kawai ta hanyar zaton cewa Allah yana wanzuwa a matsayin mafita ga matsala wacce ba ta da sarkakiya kamar yadda shawarar cewa Allah yana wanzuwa take. Dawkins ya fada cikin kurakurai masu hadari da dama.

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:

A taƙaice, tunanin da ke bayan wannan ƙin yarda shi ne: ‘Idan aka ɗauka, don muhawara kawai, cewa hujjar tana nuna cewa akwai wani mai aiki da nufi wanda ya halicci duniya ta hanyar fasaha da muke gani, wa ya gaya maka cewa shi Allah ne?’ An warware wannan ƙin yarda a lokacin da muka tattauna hujjar halitta. Babban abin jayayya tsakanin masu kafirci shi ne ko an halicci duniya ne ta hanyar mai aiki da nufi ko a’a. Idan aka tabbatar da cewa wannan mahalicci yana wanzuwa, zai yiwu a ɗauka babu shakka cewa shi Allah ne, kuma cewa hujjar tsari mai kyau da ake gani a duniya tana nuna wasu daga cikin sifofin Allah. Hakika, shaida a kan haka tana da bayyana sosai, domin tana shiryar da mu zuwa ga cewa wannan mai aiki da nufi yana da sifofin nufi, iko, sani, hikima, rai, rahama, da sauran sifofin da aka saba danganta wa Allah. Na kammala wannan batu ta hanyar bayyana yanayin hujjar masu kafirci idan suka tunkari irin waɗannan batutuwa, cewa an gina su ta hanya mai rikitarwa wadda ke hana masu kafirci yin la’akari da duk wata hujja da ke goyon bayan wanzuwar Allah. Wani Balarabe mai kafirci ya ce, ko da ya ga Allah ya kuma karɓe Shi, hakan ba zai tabbatar da cewa Shi ne Mahalicci na duniya ba; idan Ya halicci wani abu a gabanmu, ‘hakan ma ba zai zama hujja ba cewa Shi ne ya halicce ni’. Irin wannan taurin kai ne ke nuna rarrabuwar da ke tsakaninmu da su, wadda kusan ba zai yiwu a rufe ta ba idan ana tattaunawa a kan wannan batu da irin waɗannan mutane. Bayan haka, shiriya tana hannun Allah – Yana shiryar da wanda Yake so, kuma Yana ɓatar da wanda Yake so.

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.