Je, Ulimwengu Kutoka Kwenye Hakuna Kitu? – Hoja ya Qur'ani kwa Ajili ya Mungu - Uhalisia wa Kimungu

Je, Ulimwengu Kutoka Kwenye Hakuna Kitu? – Hoja ya Qur'ani kwa Ajili ya Mungu - Uhalisia wa Kimungu | Quran Course

Je, unaamini kile unachokiona kwenye skrini? Bila shaka huamini. Mwanzoni, unategemea angavu yako kwamba haiwezekani kompyuta na meza kuonekana bila shughuli au sababu iliyotangulia. Kisha unaanza kufikiri kile kinachoweza kuwa kimetokea. Baada ya kutafakari, unatambua kuwa kuna maelezo machache yenye mantiki. La kwanza ni kwamba zinaweza kuwa zimetokea bila sababu yoyote au shughuli iliyotangulia; kwa maneno mengine, kutoka kwenye kitu chochote. La pili ni kwamba zinaweza kujisababisha au kujiumba zenyewe. La tatu ni kwamba zinaweza kuwa zimeumbwa au kuwekwa pale na sababu fulani iliyotangulia. Kwa kuwa uwezo wako wa kufikiri ni wa kawaida na unafanya kazi vizuri, unahitimisha kuwa maelezo ya tatu ndiyo yenye mantiki zaidi. Ingawa aina hii ya hoja ni ya ulimwengu wote, toleo imara zaidi la hoja hii linapatikana likifupishwa kwa ufasaha katika Qur'ani. Hoja inasema kwamba maelezo yanayowezekana kwa kiumbe chenye ukomo kuanza kuwepo ni kwamba kilitokana na chochote, kilijiumba chenyewe, kingeweza kuumbwa na kitu kingine kilichoumbwa, au kiliumbwa na kitu kisichoumbwa. Kabla ya kuchambua hoja hii zaidi, ni lazima ieleweke kwamba Qur'ani mara nyingi huwasilisha hoja za kiakili zenye mantiki. Qur'ani ni kitabu chenye ushawishi na nguvu kinachotaka kumshirikisha msomaji wake. Hivyo, kinajipenyeza kwa nguvu akilini na mioyoni mwetu, na njia inayofanikisha hilo ni kuuliza maswali ya kina na kutoa hoja zenye nguvu. Profesa Mshiriki wa Masomo ya Kiislamu Rosalind Ward Gwynne anatoa maoni kuhusu kipengele hiki cha Qur'ani: "Ukweli kwamba sehemu kubwa ya Qur'ani ipo katika mfumo wa hoja unaonyesha kwa kiwango gani wanadamu wanavyoonekana kuhitaji sababu za matendo yao…."121

Do you believe what you have read on the screen? Of course you do not. At first glance you rely on your intuition that it is impossible for the computer and the desk to have appeared from no prior activity or cause. Then you start to think about what could possibly have happened. After some thought you realise a limited number of reasonable explanations. The first is that they could have come from no causal conditions or prior activity—in other words, nothing. The second is that they could have caused or created themselves. The third is that they could have been created or placed there by some prior cause. Since your cognitive faculties are normal and in working order, you conclude that the third explanation is the most rational. Although this form of reasoning is universal, a more robust variation of the argument can be found eloquently summarised in the Qur’an. The argument states that the possible explanations for a finite entity coming into being could be that it came from nothing, it created itself, it could have been created by something else created, or it was created by something uncreated. Before I break down the argument further, it must be noted that the Qur’an often presents rational intellectual arguments. The Qur’an is a persuasive and powerful text that seeks to engage its reader. Hence it positively imposes itself on our minds and hearts, and the way it achieves this is by asking profound questions and presenting powerful arguments. Associate Professor of Islamic Studies Rosalind Ward Gwynne comments on this aspect of the Qur’an: “The very fact that so much of the Qur’an is in the form of arguments shows to what extent human beings are perceived as needing reasons for their actions….”121

Kiuhalisi, ulimwengu hauna tofauti kimsingi na mfuko wa mipira au rundo la mchemraba nilivyoeleza hapo juu. Ulimwengu ni halisi. Umeundwa na vitu vya kimwili vilivyotenganishwa. Kwa kuwa kitu kisicho na mwisho kilichotofautishwa hakiwezi kuwepo katika ulimwengu halisi, inafuata kwamba ulimwengu hauwezi kuwa usio na mwisho. Hii inamaanisha kwamba ulimwengu ni wa mwisho, na kwa kuwa ni wa mwisho ni lazima ulikuwa na mwanzo. Utafiti wa kisayansi unaohusiana na mwanzo wa ulimwengu haujajadiliwa hapa kwa sababu data kwa sasa haitoshi kuamua jambo. Kutotosheleza kwa data ni "nadharia inayoeleza kwamba kwa nadharia yoyote inayotegemea sayansi daima kutakuwepo angalau nadharia moja pinzani pia inayoungwa mkono na ushahidi uliotolewa…" 128. Kuna takriban mifano 17 shindani ya kueleza ushahidi wa kikosmolojia. Baadhi ya mifano hii inahitimisha kwamba ulimwengu ni wa mwisho na ulikuwa na mwanzo, na nyingine zinasema kwamba ulimwengu ni wa milele tangu zamani. Ushahidi si wa uhakika. Hitimisho linaweza kubadilika wakati ushahidi mpya utakapoonekana au mifano mipya itakapoundwa (ona Sura ya 12).

Conceptually, the universe is no different to the bag of balls or the stack of cubes I have explained above. The universe is real. It is made up of discrete physical things. Since the differentiated infinite cannot exist in the real world, it follows that the universe cannot be infinite. This implies that the universe is finite, and since it is finite it must have had a beginning. The scientific research that relates to the beginning of the universe has not been discussed here because the data is currently underdetermined. Underdetermination is a “thesis explaining that for any scientifically based theory there will always be at least one rival theory that is also supported by the evidence given…” 128 .There are around 17 competing models to explain the cosmological evidence. Some of these models conclude that the universe is finite and had a beginning and others argue that the universe is past eternal. The evidence is not conclusive. The conclusions might change when new evidence is observed or new models are developed (see Chapter 12).

Mojawapo ya sababu zinazofanya jambo hili lionekane wazi kwa urahisi ni kwamba limejengwa juu ya kanuni ya kimantiki (au ya kimetafizikia): kuwepo hakuwezi kutokana na kutokuwepo. Kudai kinyume chake ni ninachokiita hoja potofu. Kila mtu angeweza kudai chochote. Ikiwa mtu anaweza kudai kwamba ulimwengu mzima unaweza kutokana na kisichokuwepo, basi matokeo yake yangekuwa ya kipuuzi. Wangeweza kudai kwamba chochote kinaweza kuja kuwepo bila sharti lolote la kisababishi kabisa. Ili kitu kitokee kutokana na kisichokuwepo, lazima kiwe na angalau aina fulani ya uwezekano au masharti ya kisababishi. Kwa kuwa kutokuwepo ni kukosekana kwa vitu vyote, ikiwa ni pamoja na sharti lolote la aina ya kisababishi, basi kitu hakiwezi kutokana na kisichokuwepo. Kushikilia kwamba kitu kinaweza kutokana na kisichokuwepo ni sawa kimantiki na dhana kwamba mambo yanaweza kutoweka, kuoza, kuangamia au kupotea bila sharti lolote la kisababishi. Watu wanaodai kwamba kitu kinaweza kutokana na kisichokuwepo lazima pia wakubali kwamba kitu kinaweza kutoweka bila sharti lolote la kisababishi kabisa. Kwa mfano, ikiwa jengo lingetoweka kabisa, watu kama hao hawapaswi kushangazwa na tukio hilo, kwa sababu ikiwa mambo yanaweza kutokea bila sharti lolote la kisababishi, basi kimantiki inamaanisha kwamba mambo yanaweza pia kutoweka bila sharti lolote la kisababishi. Hata hivyo, kudai kwamba mambo yanaweza kutoweka tu bila kurejelea sharti lolote la kisababishi kungekuwa upuuzi wa kimantiki. Hoja inayotolewa mara nyingi ni kwamba ulimwengu unaweza kutokana na kisichokuwepo kwa sababu katika ombwe la kwantamu chembe huibuka ghafla kuwepo. Hoja hii inadhani kwamba ombwe la kwantamu ni kisichokuwepo. Hata hivyo, hili si kweli. Ombwe la kwantamu ni kitu; si utupu kamili, na linatii sheria za fizikia. Ombwe la kwantamu ni hali ya nishati inayopita upesi. Kwa hiyo si kisichokuwepo, bali ni kitu cha kimwili.

One of the reasons that this is so intuitive is because it is based on a rational (or metaphysical) principle: being cannot come from nonbeing. To assert the opposite is what I would call counter discourse. Anyone could claim anything. If someone can claim that the entire universe can come from nothing, then the implications would be absurd. They could assert that anything could come into being without any causal conditions at all. For something to arise from nothing it must have at least some type of potential or causal conditions. Since nothing is the absence of all things, including any type of causal condition, then something could not arise from nothing. Maintaining that something can arise from nothing is logically equivalent to the notion that things can vanish, decay, annihilate or disappear without any causal conditions whatsoever. Individuals who argue that something can come from nothing must also maintain that something can vanish from no causal conditions at all. For example, if a building completely vanished, such individuals should not be surprised by the event, because if things can come from no causal conditions at all, then it logically implies that things can vanish by means of no causal conditions as well. However, to argue that things can just vanish without reference to any causal condition would be rationally absurd. A common contention is that the universe could come from nothing because in the quantum vacuum particles pop into existence. This argument assumes that the quantum vacuum is nothing. However, this is not true. The quantum vacuum is something; it is not an absolute void and it obeys the laws of physics. The quantum vacuum is a state of fleeting energy. So it is not nothing, it is something physical.129.

Hii ni mabadiliko ya kuvutia ya kiisimu, kwa kuwa ufafanuzi wa neno "nothing" (hakuna kitu) katika lugha ya Kiingereza unarejelea ukanushaji wa kila kitu, lakini inaonekana kwamba "nothing" ya Krauss ni jina la kitu fulani. Ingawa utafiti wake unadai kwamba "nothing" ni kutokuwepo kwa wakati, nafasi na chembe, yeye huwapotosha wasomaji wasio na ujuzi na hashindwi kuthibitisha waziwazi kwamba bado kuna dutu halisi. Hata kama, kama Krauss anavyodai, hakuna jambo (matter), lazima kuwepo na sehemu za kimwili (physical fields). Hii ni kwa sababu haiwezekani kuwa na eneo ambalo hakuna sehemu za kimwili, kwa kuwa mvutano (gravity) hauwezi kuzuiwa. Katika nadharia ya quantum, mvutano katika kiwango hiki cha uhalisia hauhitaji vitu vyenye uzito, lakini unahitaji dutu halisi. Kwa hiyo, "nothing" ya Krauss kwa kweli ni "something". Mahali pengine katika kitabu chake, anaandika kwamba kila kitu kilitokea kutokana na mabadiliko madogo ya quantum (quantum fluctuations), jambo linaloeleza uumbaji kutoka "nothing", lakini hilo linamaanisha kuwepo kwa hali ya quantum iliyokuwepo kabla, ili hilo liwezekane.133.

This is an interesting linguistic deviation, as the definition of nothing in the English language refers to a universal negation, but it seems that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is a label for something. Although his research claims that ‘nothing’ is the absence of time, space and particles, he misleads the untrained reader and fails to confirm (explicitly) that there is still some physical stuff. Even if, as Krauss claims, there is no matter, there must be physical fields. This is because it is impossible to have a region where there are no fields because gravity cannot be blocked. In quantum theory, gravity at this level of reality does not require objects with mass, but does require physical stuff. Therefore, Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. Elsewhere in his book, he writes that everything came into being from quantum fluctuations, which explains a creation from ‘nothing’, but that implies a pre-existent quantum state in order for that to be a possibility.133.

“Lakini hilo si sahihi kabisa. Hali za utupu za nadharia ya uwanja wa quantum wenye uhusiano wa kiwango cha juu, kama vile twiga, friji au mifumo ya jua, ni mipangilio fulani ya vitu rahisi vya kimwili. Sawa ya kweli, katika nadharia hiyo, ya kutokuwepo kwa kitu chochote cha kimwili si mpangilio huu au ule wa nyanja hizo, bali ni kutokuwepo kabisa kwa nyanja hizo! Ukweli kwamba baadhi ya mipangilio ya nyanja huendana na kuwepo kwa chembe, na nyingine hazifanyi hivyo, si wa ajabu zaidi kuliko ukweli kwamba baadhi ya mipangilio inayowezekana ya vidole vyangu huendana na kuwepo kwa ngumi, na nyingine hazifanyi hivyo. Na ukweli kwamba chembe zinaweza kutokea na kutoweka, kadiri muda unavyopita, nyanja zinapojipanga upya, si wa ajabu zaidi kuliko ukweli kwamba ngumi zinaweza kutokea na kutoweka, kadiri muda unavyopita, vidole vyangu vinapojipanga upya. Na hakuna hata mojawapo ya hayo kutokea na kutoweka — ukiyatazama kwa usahihi — kinachokaribia hata kidogo uumbaji kutoka kwenye hakuna kitu.”

“But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of simple physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields —it is just the absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some do not is not any more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some do not. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not any more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.” 134.

Madai hii yanadai kimakosa kwamba sababu (causality) ni dhana inayotokana na uzoefu. Sababu ni ya kitangulizi (a priori); ni maarifa yanayotangulia uzoefu. Ni dhana ya kimetafizikia ambayo ni lazima ili tuweze kuelewa uzoefu wetu kwanza kabisa. Sisi ndio tunaoleta dhana hiyo katika kila uzoefu, badala ya uzoefu wetu ndio utuletee dhana hiyo. Ni kama kuvaa miwani yenye rangi ya manjano: kila kitu kinaonekana cha manjano si kwa sababu ya kitu kilichopo huko nje duniani, bali kwa sababu ya miwani tunayotazamia kila kitu kupitia nayo. Bila sababu, hatungeweza kuwa na uelewa wenye maana wa dunia. Chukua mfano ufuatao: fikiria unaitazama Ikulu ya White House huko Washington DC. Macho yako yanaweza kuhamia kwenye mlango, kisha kuvuka nguzo, kisha kwenye paa na hatimaye kuelekea kwenye nyasi za mbele. Unaweza pia kubadilisha mpangilio wa mitazamo yako; unaweza kuanza kuitazama nyasi, kisha paa, nguzo na hatimaye mlango. Sasa linganisha hili na uzoefu mwingine: uko kwenye Mto Thames huko London na unaona mashua ikielea mbele yako. Unaweza kuona mbele ya mashua kabla ya kuona nyuma yake, na huwezi kubadilisha mpangilio wa uzoefu huo mashua inapopita. Ulipoitazama White House ulikuwa na uchaguzi wa kuona mlango kwanza, kisha nguzo na kadhalika. Ungeweza pia kubadilisha mpangilio wa mitazamo yako. Lakini kwa mashua hukuwa na uchaguzi. Mbele ya mashua ndiyo ilikuwa ya kwanza kuonekana, na hukuweza kupanga upya mitazamo yako kwa kujaribu kuona nyuma kabla ya mbele. Ni nini kinachoamua mpangilio ambao uzoefu huu ulitokea? Kwa nini unajua wakati unaweza kupanga mitazamo yako na wakati hauwezi? Jibu ni dhana ya sababu. Kuna miunganiko ya kimantiki ya sababu inayotokea akilini mwako wakati unaziona White House na mashua.

This objection falsely assumes that causality is a concept based on experience. Causality is a priori; knowledge prior to experience. It is a metaphysical concept, that is required in order for us to understand our experiences in the first place. We bring it to all our experience, rather than our experience bringing it to us. It is like wearing yellow-tinted glasses, everything looks yellow not because of anything out there in the world, but because of the glasses through which we are looking at everything. Without causality, we would not be able to have a meaningful understanding of the world. Take the following example into consideration; imagine you are looking at the White House in Washington DC. Your eyes may wonder to the door, across the pillars, then to the roof and finally over to the front lawn. You can also reverse the order of your perceptions; you can first start to look at the lawn, then to the roof, the pillars and finally the roof. Now contrast this to another experience, you are on the river Thames in London and you see a boat floating past. You can only see the front of the boat before you see the back, and you cannot reverse the order of that experience as the boat floats past. When you looked at the White House you had a choice to see the door first and then the pillars and so on. You could also reverse the order of your perceptions. However, with the boat you had no choice. The front of the boat was the first to appear, and you could not reorder your perceptions by trying to see the back before you saw the front. What dictates the order in which you had these experiences? Why is it that you know when you can order your perceptions and when you cannot? The answer is the concept of causality. There are logical causal connections occurring in your mind while you are perceiving the White House and the boat.

Je, ulimwengu unaweza kujiumba wenyewe? Neno ‘kuumbwa’ linamaanisha kitu kilichotokea, na hivyo hapo awali hakikuwepo. Njia nyingine ya kueleza kwamba kitu kimeumbwa ni kwamba kililetwa kuwepo. Maneno haya yote yanadokeza kwamba kitu ni chenye mwisho, kwa kuwa vitu vyote vilivyoumbwa ni vyenye mwisho. Kuelewa dhana ya uumbaji kunatuongoza kuhitimisha kwamba kujiumba kwa kitu chenyewe ni jambo lisilowezekana kimantiki na kiutendaji. Hii ni kwa sababu kujiumba kunamaanisha kwamba kitu kilikuwepo na wakati huo huo hakikuwepo, jambo ambalo haliwezekani. Kitu kilichotokea kinamaanisha kwamba hapo awali hakikuwepo; lakini kusema kwamba kilijiumba wenyewe kunamaanisha kwamba kilikuwepo kabla hakijawepo! Zingatia swali hili: Je, ilikuwa inawezekana mama yako kujizalia mwenyewe? Kudai jambo kama hilo kungemaanisha kwamba angelazimika kuzaliwa kabla hajazaliwa. Kitu kinapoumbwa, kinamaanisha kwamba hapo awali hakikuwepo, na hivyo hakikuwa na uwezo wa kufanya chochote. Kwa hiyo kudai kwamba kilijiumba wenyewe ni jambo lisilowezekana, kwa kuwa kisingekuwa na uwezo wowote kabla ya kuumbwa ili kijiumbe. Hili linahusu vitu vyote vyenye mwisho, na ulimwengu nao umo ndani yake. Mwanazuoni wa Kiislamu Al-Khattabi anaeleza kwa ufupi kasoro ya hoja hii:

Could the universe have created itself? The term ‘created’ refers to something that emerged, and therefore it was once not in existence. Another way of speaking about something being created is that it was brought into being. All of these words imply something being finite, as all things that were created are finite. Understanding the concept of creation leads us to conclude that self-creation is a logical and practical impossibility. This is due to the fact that self-creation implies that something was in existence and not in existence at the same time, which is impossible. Something that emerged means that it once was not in existence; however, to say that it created itself implies that it was in existence before it existed! Consider the following question: Was it possible for your mother to give birth to herself? To claim such a thing would suggest that she would have to be born before she was born. When something is created, it means it once did not exist, and therefore had no power to do anything. So to claim that it created itself is impossible, as it could not have any power before it was created in order to create itself. This applies to all finite things, and that includes the universe too. Islamic scholar Al-Khattabi aptly summarises the fallacy of this argument:

Andrew Compson, rais wa sasa wa Chama cha Wanadamu wa Uingereza (British Humanist Association), mara moja alishiriki katika mjadala wa hadharani nami katika Chuo Kikuu cha Birmingham. Mimi niliwasilisha hoja ya Qur'ani kuhusu kuwepo kwa Mungu. Jibu lake kwa madai yangu kwamba kujiumba kwa nafsi hakuwezekani lilikuwa kwamba kujiumba kwa nafsi kunapatikana katika viumbe vyenye seli moja, ambavyo pia hujulikana katika biolojia kama uzazi usio wa kijinsia. Hoja ya Andrew ina makosa kwa sababu kadhaa. Kwanza, alichokitaja kuhusu viumbe vyenye seli moja si kujiumba kwa nafsi, bali ni njia ya uzazi ambapo watoto huzaliwa kutoka kwa kiumbe kimoja na kurithi nyenzo za kijenetiki za mzazi huyo pekee. Pili, ikiwa tutapanua mfano wake kimantiki hadi kwenye ulimwengu, unadhani kwamba ulimwengu daima ulikuwepo, kwa sababu ili uzazi usio wa kijinsia utokee, unahitaji mzazi aliyekuwepo kabla ya mtoto. Kwa hiyo, hoja yake kwa kweli inathibitisha kile nilichokuwa nikisema: ulimwengu wakati fulani haukuwepo kabisa, hivyo haungeweza kujijenga wenyewe kuwepo. Huenda ukafikiri kwamba hoja hii ni ya kipuuzi na haikuhitaji kujadiliwa. Nakubaliana nawe. Hata hivyo, nimeijumuisha ili kuonyesha jinsi baadhi ya hoja za kupinga za wasioamini Mungu zinavyoweza kuwa zisizo na mantiki.

Andrew Compson, the current chair of the British Humanist Association, once engaged in a public debate with me at the University of Birmingham. I presented the Qur’anic argument for God’s existence. His response to my assertion that self-creation is impossible was that self-creation can be found in single-celled organisms, also known in biology as asexual reproduction. Andrew’s objection is false on a few grounds. Firstly, what he referred to in single-celled organisms is not self-creation, but rather a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism and inherit the genetic material of that parent only. Secondly, if we logically extend his example to the universe, it assumes that the universe always existed, because for asexual reproduction to occur you need a parent that existed prior to the offspring. Therefore, his objection actually proves the point I was making; the universe once never existed, so it could not bring itself into existence. You may be thinking that this objection is absurd, and it was not necessary to discuss it. I agree. However, I included this to show how unreasonable some atheist counter-arguments can be.

Thirdly, there are two types of explanations that we can apply to the creation of the universe. The first is a scientific explanation, and the second is a personal one. Let me explain this using tea. In order to make tea, I have to boil some water, place the tea bag in the cup and allow it to infuse. This process can be explained scientifically. The water must be 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) before it reaches boiling point, it has to travel across a semipermeable membrane (tea bag), and I have to use my glycogen stores to enable my muscles to contract to move my limbs to ensure all of this takes place. Obviously, a trained scientist could go into further detail, but I think you get the point. Conversely, the whole process can also be explained personally: the tea has been made because I wanted some tea. Now let's apply this to the universe. We do not have observations or empirical evidence on how the Creator created the universe; we can only rely on a personal explanation, which is that God chose for the universe to come into existence. Even if we had a scientific explanation, it would not negate a personal one, as shown in the tea example.163

Thirdly, there are two types of explanations we can apply to the creation of the universe. The first is a scientific explanation, and the second is a personal one. Let me explain this using tea. In order to make tea, I have to boil some water, place the tea bag in the cup and allow it to infuse. This process can be explained scientifically. The water must be 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) before it reaches boiling point, it has to travel across a semipermeable membrane (tea bag), and I have to use my glycogen stores to enable my muscles to contract to move my limbs to ensure all of this takes place. Obviously, a trained scientist could go into further detail, but I think you get the point. Conversely, the whole process can also be explained personally: the tea has been made because I wanted some tea. Now let’s apply this to the universe. We do not have observations or empirical evidence on how the Creator created the universe; we can only rely on a personal explanation, which is that God chose for the universe to come into existence. Even if we had a scientific explanation, it would not negate a personal one, as shown in the tea example.163

• Dai kwamba sababu inaweza kueleweka tu pamoja na wakati inahitaji uthibitisho. Katika falsafa hakuna makubaliano kuhusu ufafanuzi na asili ya sababu. Kuna mbinu mbalimbali zinazojaribu kufafanua na kuelewa sababu na uhusiano wa kisababu. Mojawapo ya mbinu hizo ni sababu ya kuwepo kwa wakati mmoja. Hii ni mtazamo kwamba "sababu daima hutokea pamoja na matokeo yake ya karibu."168 Mtu anaweza kusema kwamba ulimwengu na sababu yake zilitokea kwa wakati mmoja. Jaribio la kufikirika lifuatalo linaeleza uhusiano wa kisababu wa aina hii. Fikiria mpira wa milele juu ya mto wa milele. Mpira unasababisha mto kubonyea, lakini sababu (mpira) haitangulii matokeo (mbonyeo katika mto); kwa sababu wakati si kipengele kutokana na umilele wa vitu hivyo.169 Katika muktadha wa hoja hii, inawezekana kwamba wakati Mungu alipoleta ulimwengu kuwepo ndio ulipokuwa wakati ulimwengu ulipoanza kuwepo. Aina hii ya sababu haihusiani na wakati. Hii inamaanisha kwamba sababu (katika kesi hii, mapenzi na uwezo wa Mungu) ilitangulia kisababu lakini si kwa wakati (kwa muda). Sababu na matokeo yalitokea kwa wakati mmoja.

• The view that causality can only make sense with time requires proof. In philosophy there is no consensus on the definition and nature of causality. There are various approaches that attempt to define and understand causality and causal relations. One such approach is simultaneous causality. This is the view “that causes always occur simultaneously with their immediate effects.”168 One could argue that the universe and its cause occurred at the same time. The following thought experiment explains such causal relation. Imagine an eternal ball on an eternal pillow. The ball causes the indentation of the pillow, but the cause (ball) does not come before the effect (indentation in the pillow); as time is not a factor due to the eternality of the objects.169 In the context of this argument, it could be that the moment God brought the universe into existence was the moment the universe came into being. This type of causation is atemporal. This means that the cause (in this case, God’s will and power) occurred prior causally but not prior temporally (in time). The cause and affect occurred simultaneously.

• Hoja hii inajikanusha yenyewe. Ikiwa sababu-tokeo (causality) haiwezi kuwepo bila wakati, basi Mlipuko Mkubwa (Big Bang) ungepaswa kukataliwa. Kwa kuwa katika kiwango cha umoja (singularity) wa Mlipuko Mkubwa hakukuwa na wakati, bali kulikuwa na mpaka wa wakati, na mpaka huo kwa wazi una uhusiano wa kisababu na ulimwengu wote uliobaki, basi uhusiano huu wa kisababu unaweza kueleweka vipi bila wakati? Iwapo wanaopinga watakubali kwamba mpaka huo una uhusiano wa kisababu na ulimwengu wote uliobaki, basi nao wanapaswa pia kukubali uhusiano huo huo usio wa kiwakati wakati Mungu alipoamua kudhihirisha mapenzi Yake na uwezo Wake wa kuuumba ulimwengu.171. Ikiwa wanashikilia kwamba sababu-tokeo haina maana nje ya wakati, basi watalazimika kukataa uhusiano wa kisababu kati ya mpaka wa umoja huo na ulimwengu uliobaki, jambo ambalo ni sawa na kukataa kuwepo kwa ulimwengu. Mpinzani anaweza kusema kwamba baadhi ya wanafizikia wanashikilia kwamba ulimwengu hauna mpaka. Hata hivyo, hili ni suala lenye mabishano makubwa lisilo na makubaliano.172

• This objection is self-defeating. If causality cannot exist without time then the Big Bang should be rejected. Given that at the point of the Big Bang’s singularity there was no time, but a boundary to time, and the boundary is obviously causally connected to the rest of the universe, then how can this causal relation makes sense with no time? If the objectors accept that the boundary is causally connected to the rest of the universe, they should also accept the same atemporal causal relation when God decided to manifest His will and power to create the universe.171. If they maintain that causality doesn’t make sense outside of time, they will have to reject the causal relation between the boundary of the singularity to the rest of the universe, which is tantamount to rejecting the existence of the universe. The objector can argue that some physicists maintain that the universe has no boundary. This however is a contentious issue with no consensus.172