想象你坐在一个房间的角落里。你进来时的那扇门现已被完全封死，无法进出。墙壁、天花板和地面都是石头砌成的。你所能做的，只是凝望眼前空旷无物的空间，四周是冰冷、昏暗、坚硬的石壁。由于极度无聊，你睡着了。过了几个小时，你醒了过来。睁开眼睛时，你惊讶地发现房间中央有一张书桌，桌上放着一台电脑。你走近书桌，注意到电脑屏幕上有一些文字：这张书桌和这台电脑是从虚无中来的。

Imagine you find yourself sitting in the corner of a room. The door that you entered through is now completely sealed and there is no way of entering or exiting. The walls, ceiling and floor are made up of stone. All you can do is stare into open, empty space, surrounded by cold, dark and stony walls. Due to immense boredom, you fall asleep. A few hours pass by; you wake up. As you open your eyes, you are shocked to see that in the middle of the room is a desk with a computer on top of it. You approach the desk and notice some words on the computer screen: This desk and computer came from nothing.

你相信屏幕上所读到的内容吗?当然不会。乍一看,你凭直觉认为,电脑和桌子不可能无缘无故地凭空出现。随后你开始思考可能发生了什么。经过一番思索,你认识到几种合理的解释。第一种是它们可能来自没有任何因果条件或先前活动的状态,也就是说,来自虚无。第二种是它们可能自己造就了自己。第三种是它们可能是被某个先前的原因创造或放置在那里的。由于你的认知能力正常且运作良好,你得出结论:第三种解释最为合理。尽管这种推理形式具有普遍性,但在《古兰经》中可以找到一种更为有力的论证变体,并得到精辟的概括。该论证指出,一个有限的存在者之所以出现,可能的解释有:它来自虚无;它自己创造了自己;它可能是被另一个被造之物所创造;或者它是被一个非被造者所创造。在进一步剖析这一论证之前,必须指出,《古兰经》常常提出理性的智识论证。《古兰经》是一部有说服力且强有力的经典,旨在吸引读者。因此,它积极地作用于我们的头脑与心灵,而它实现这一目的的方式,就是提出深刻的问题并给出有力的论证。伊斯兰研究副教授罗莎琳·沃德·格温(Rosalind Ward Gwynne)就《古兰经》的这一特点评论道:“《古兰经》中有如此多的内容采用论证的形式,这一事实本身就表明,人类在多大程度上被视为需要理由来支撑自己的行为……”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

格温还认为，《古兰经》的这一特点对伊斯兰学术产生了影响：

Gwynne also maintains that this feature of the Qur’an influenced Islamic scholarship:

“推理与论证在《古兰经》的内容中是如此根本，与其结构如此不可分割，以至于在许多方面塑造了《古兰经》学者的思维本身。”122

“Reasoning and argument are so integral to the content of the Qur’an and so inseparable from its structure that they in many ways shaped the very consciousness of Qur’anic scholars.”122

这种理性与启示之间的关系，即便是早期的伊斯兰学者也已经理解。他们认识到，理性思考是证明伊斯兰教理性基础的途径之一。14世纪的伊斯兰学者伊本·泰米叶写道，早期的伊斯兰学术"知道启示性证据与理性证据都是真实的，而且二者相互蕴含。凡是对理性……证据给予充分考察的人，都知道它们与众使者所告知的内容相符，并且它们向他证明了必须相信众使者所告知的内容。"123

This relationship between reason and revelation was understood even by early Islamic scholars. They understood that rational thinking was one of the ways to prove the intellectual foundations of Islam. The 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya writes that early Islamic scholarship “knew that both revelational and rational proofs were true and that they entailed one another. Whoever gave rational… proofs the complete enquiry due them, knew that they agreed with what the messengers informed them about and that they proved to them the necessity of believing the messengers in what they informed them about.”123.

《古兰经》的论证。

The Qur’anic argument.

《古兰经》为真主的存在提供了一个有力的论证："他们是无中生有的吗？他们是自己的创造者吗？还是他们创造了天地？不然，他们是不确信的。"124

The Qur’an provides a powerful argument for God’s existence: “Or were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and Earth? Rather, they are not certain.”124

虽然这一论证指的是人类，但它同样可以适用于任何开始存在的事物，或任何产生出来的事物。《古兰经》使用了 khuliqu 一词，其意为被创造、被造成或起源。125 因此，它可以指任何已经存在的事物。

Although this argument refers to the human being, it can also be applied to anything that began to exist, or anything that emerged. The Qur’an uses the word khuliqu, which means created, made or originated.125 So it can refer to anything that came into being.

现在让我们来分析这一论证。《古兰经》提出了四种可能性，用以解释某物是如何被创造、产生或存在的：

Now let us break down the argument. The Qur’an mentions four possibilities to explain how something was created or came into being or existence:

• 被虚无所造:"他们是被虚无所造的吗?"

• Created by nothing: “or were they created by nothing?”.

• 自我创造：“抑或他们是自己的创造者吗？”

• Self-created: “or were they the creators of themselves?”.

由被造物所造：“难道他们是自己创造了天地吗？”这句经文暗示，一个被造之物，最终是由另一个被造之物所造的。

• Created by something created: “or did they create the heavens and the Earth?”, which implies a created thing being ultimately created by something else created.

• 被非受造者所造：“不，他们并不确定”，这暗示否认真主的说法是没有根据的，因此该陈述意味着存在一位非受造的创造者。126.

• Created by something uncreated: “Rather, they are not certain”, implying that the denial of God is baseless, and therefore the statement implies that there is an uncreated creator.126.

这一论证也可以转化为一个通用公式，无需引用经文。

This argument can also be turned into a universal formula that does not require reference to scripture:

1. 宇宙是有限的。

1. The universe is finite.

2. 有限的事物可能是来自虚无，可能是自我创造的，可能是最终由某个被造物所创造的，也可能是由某个非被造的存在所创造的。

2. Finite things could have come from nothing, created themselves, been ultimately created by something created, or been created by something uncreated.

3. 它们不可能从虚无中产生，不可能自己创造自己，也不可能最终是由某个被造之物所创造的。

3. They could not have come from nothing, created themselves, or have been ultimately created by something created.

4. 因此,它们是由某个非受造者所创造的。

4. Therefore, they were created by something uncreated.

宇宙是有限的。

The universe is finite.

一系列哲学论证表明宇宙是有限的。其中最有说服力也最简单的一种，是论证实际存在的物理无限不可能存在。我在这里所讨论的实际无限，是一种有区分的无限，即由离散部分构成的无限，就像物理事物或物体那样。这些物理事物可以包括原子、夸克、公交车、长颈鹿和量子场。然而，无区分的无限则不由离散部分构成。这种无限是融贯的，并且可以存在。例如，真主的无限就是一种无区分的无限，因为祂并非由离散的物理部分构成。在伊斯兰教神学中，祂是独一的，超越万有的。

A range of philosophical arguments shows the finitude of the universe The most cogent and simplest of these arguments involves demonstrating that an actual physical infinite cannot exist. The type of actual infinite that I am addressing here is a differentiated type of infinite, which is an infinite made up of discrete parts, like physical things or objects. These physical things can include atoms, quarks, buses, giraffes and quantum fields. The undifferentiated type of infinite, however, is an infinite that is not made of discrete parts. This infinite is coherent and can exist. For instance, the infinity of God is an undifferentiated infinite, as He is not made up of discrete physical parts. In Islamic theology, He is uniquely one and transcendent.

在论证实无限不可能存在方面，最有说服力、也最直观的论证形式是思想实验。这里关注的是物理上的实无限能否被实现，这与数学上的无限不同。数学中的无限虽然在逻辑上自洽，但它存在于数学领域，通常建立在公理和假设之上。我们所关心的是，无限能否在现实的物理世界中得以实现。

The most persuasive and intuitive arguments to substantiate the impossibility of an actual infinite, come in the form of thought experiments. Now the concern here is with the impossibility of the physical infinite being actualised. This is different from mathematical infinites. Although logically coherent, these exist in the mathematical realm, which is usually based on axioms and assumptions. Our concern is whether the infinite can be realised in the real physical world.

Understood. Please send the text you would like translated into Simplified Chinese, and I will provide the translation only.

Take the following examples into consideration:

1. 装球的袋子：想象一个袋子里有无穷多个球。如果你拿走两个球，还剩多少个球？从数学上讲，仍然是无穷多个。然而，从实际来看，应该比袋子里原来的少两个。如果不是拿走而是再加入两个球，现在有多少个球？应该比袋子里原来的多两个。

1. Bag of balls: Imagine you had an infinite number of balls in a bag. If you take two balls away, how many balls do you have left? Well, mathematically you still have an infinite number. However, practically, you should have two less than what is in the bag. What if you added another two balls instead of removing them? How many balls are there now? There should be two more than what was in the bag.

你应当能够数出袋中有多少个球，但你做不到，因为无限只是一个观念，并不存在于现实世界之中。这清楚地表明，由离散的物理部分或事物构成的实际无限是不可能存在的。有鉴于此，德国著名数学家大卫·希尔伯特说："无限在现实中无处可寻。它既不存在于自然之中，也不为理性思维提供合法的基础……无限所能扮演的角色，仅仅是一个观念。"127

You should be able to count how many balls are in the bag, but you cannot because the infinite is just an idea and does not exist in the real world. This clearly shows you cannot have an actualised infinite made up of discrete physical parts or things. In light of this fact, the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said, “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought… the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”127.

2. 大小不同的立方体堆叠：想象你有一摞立方体。每个立方体都有编号。第一个立方体的体积为10cm3

2. Stack of cubes with different sizes: Imagine you had a stack of cubes. Each cube is numbered. The first cube has a volume of 10cm3

接下来放在它上面的立方体体积为5立方厘米。3

. The next cube on top of that has a volume of 5cm3

接下来的立方体是前一个立方体的一半。这一过程无限进行下去(一次又一次,以同样的方式永远继续)。现在去堆栈的顶部,移除顶部的立方体。你不能这样做。那里找不到立方体。为什么?因为如果顶部能找到一个立方体,那就意味着这些立方体并没有无限延伸。

and the next cube is half of the previous cube. This goes on ad infinitum (again and again in the same way forever). Now go to the top of the stack and remove the cube at the top. You cannot. There is no cube to be found. Why? Because if there was a cube to be found at the top it would mean that the cubes did not reach infinity.

然而，由于这一堆叠中不存在顶端的立方体，它也表明：尽管数学上的无穷（基于一定的假设和公理）是存在的，但现实世界中不可能存在实际的无穷。既然这一堆叠没有尽头，那么由离散的物理事物（在此例中即立方体）构成的无穷，就无法在物理上实现。

However, since there is no cube at the top, it also shows— even though the mathematical infinite exists (with assumptions and axioms)—that you cannot have an actualised infinite in the real world. Since there is no end to the stack, it shows the infinite—that is made up of discrete physical things (in this case the cubes)—cannot be physically realised.

从概念上讲,宇宙与我上文所举的一袋球或一摞方块并无不同。宇宙是真实的,由一个个离散的物理事物构成。既然真实世界中不可能存在被区分开的无限,那么宇宙就不可能是无限的。由此可知,宇宙是有限的;既然有限,它就必定有一个开端。 本书在此没有讨论与宇宙起源相关的科学研究,因为目前的数据尚不足以唯一确定结论。欠定性(underdetermination)是一种论点,即其认为对于任何基于科学的理论,总会至少存在一个同样得到现有证据支持的竞争理论……128 。目前约有17种相互竞争的模型用来解释宇宙学证据。其中一些模型得出宇宙是有限且有开端的结论,另一些则主张宇宙是过去永恒的。证据尚无定论。随着新证据的观测或新模型的提出,结论可能会发生改变(参见第12章)。

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).

现在我们已经可以运用四种逻辑上的可能性来解释宇宙的起源，并逐一加以讨论。

Now we are in a position to apply the four logical possibilities to explain the beginning of the universe and discuss each one.

“从无中创造”？在讨论这种可能性之前，我需要先界定“无”的含义。“无”被定义为一切事物的缺失。为了更好地说明，可以设想：所有物质、能量与潜能全部消失，那种状态就被称为“无”。这不应与量子真空或量子场相混淆，我稍后会解释这一概念。“无”也指不存在任何因果条件的状态。因果条件是指任何能够产生结果的原因。这种原因可以是物质性的，也可以是非物质性的。

Created from nothing?. Before I address this possibility, I need to define what is meant by ‘nothing’. Nothing is defined as the absence of all things. To illustrate this better, imagine if everything, all matter, energy and potential, were to vanish; that state would be described as nothing. This is not to be confused with the quantum vacuum or field, a concept I will explain later. Nothing also refers to the absence of any causal condition. A causal condition is any type of cause that produces an effect. This cause can be material or non-material.

断言事物可以从无中产生，意味着事物可以在没有任何潜能、没有任何物质、乃至完全虚无的情况下产生。这样的主张既违背我们的直觉，也与理性相悖。

Asserting that things can come from nothing means that things can come into being from no potential, no matter or nothing at all. To assert such a thing defies our intuitions and stands against reason.

“那么，宇宙能否从无中产生？”显而易见的答案是不能，因为从无中不可能生有。虚无不可能产生任何东西。没有任何因果条件，就不可能有某物出现。换个角度看，也可以用简单的数学来说明：0 + 0 + 0 等于多少？不是 3，而是 0。

So, could the universe have come into existence from nothing? The obvious answer is no, because from nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness cannot produce anything. Something cannot arise from no causal conditions whatsoever. Another way of looking at it is by way of simple math. What is 0 + 0 + 0? It is not 3, it’s 0.

这就是它如此直观的原因之一，因为它建立在一个理性（或形而上学）原则之上：存在不能源于不存在。若要断言相反的观点，我称之为悖论式的论述。任何人都可以宣称任何事情。如果有人能宣称整个宇宙可以从无中产生，那么其含义将是荒谬的。他们可以断言任何事物无需任何因果条件便能存在。要让某物从无中产生，它必须至少具有某种潜能或因果条件。由于无是一切事物的缺席，包括任何形式的因果条件，因此某物不可能从无中产生。坚持某物可以从无中产生，在逻辑上等同于认为事物可以在毫无因果条件的情况下消失、腐朽、湮灭或消逝。主张某物可以从无中产生的人，也必须主张某物可以在毫无因果条件的情况下消失。例如，如果一栋建筑完全消失了，这些人不应对此感到惊讶，因为如果事物可以在毫无因果条件的情况下产生，那么在逻辑上也意味着事物可以通过毫无因果条件的方式消失。然而，主张事物可以在不涉及任何因果条件的情况下消失，在理性上是荒谬的。一种常见的论点是，宇宙可以从无中产生，因为在量子真空中粒子会凭空出现。这一论证假定量子真空就是无。然而，事实并非如此。量子真空是某种存在，它并非绝对的虚空，并且遵循物理定律。量子真空是一种瞬息即逝的能量状态。因此它不是无，而是某种物理实在。129.

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.

劳伦斯·克劳斯教授的“虚无”。

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s ‘nothing’.

劳伦斯·克劳斯教授的著作《从无到有的宇宙》重新激发并普及了关于莱布尼茨问题的争论：“为什么存在的是某物而不是虚无？”130 在书中，克劳斯论证说，宇宙从“虚无”中产生是有可能的。这听起来或许荒谬，但要理解他结论的语境，需要先说明一些前提和澄清的要点。

Professor Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe from Nothing, invigorated and popularised the debate on the Leibnizian question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”130 In his book, Krauss argues that it is plausible that the universe arose from ‘nothing’. Absurd as this may sound, a few presuppositions and clarifications need to be brought to light to understand the context of his conclusions.

克劳斯所说的“虚无”实际上是某种东西。在他的书中，他称虚无为“不稳定的”131，并且在其他地方他肯定虚无是某种物理的东西，他称之为“空却先于存在的空间”132。

Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. In his book, he calls nothing “unstable”131, and elsewhere he affirms that nothing is something physical, which he calls “empty but pre-existing space”132.

这是一个有趣的语言学偏差：英语中 nothing 的定义指的是全称否定，但克劳斯所说的"无"似乎是对某种东西的标签。尽管他的研究声称"无"是没有时间、空间和粒子的状态，但他误导了缺乏专业背景的读者，也没有明确指出仍然存在某种物理实体。即使如克劳斯所言没有物质，也必然存在物理场，因为不可能存在完全没有场的区域，引力无法被屏蔽。在量子理论中，这一层面的引力不需要具有质量的物体，但需要物理实体。因此，克劳斯所谓的"无"实际上是某种"有"。在书的其他部分，他写道万物是从量子涨落中产生的，这解释了从"无"中创生的说法，但这意味着必须先存在一个预先存在的量子态，创生才有可能。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.

大卫·阿尔伯特教授是《量子力学与经验》一书的作者，他撰写了一篇对克劳斯著作的书评，并得出了类似的结论：

Professor David Albert, the author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience, wrote a review of Krauss’s book, and similarly concludes:

“但这根本不对。相对论量子场论中的真空态，与长颈鹿、冰箱或太阳系一样，都是简单物理实在的某种特定排列。相对论量子场论中与“完全不存在任何物理实在”等价的，并不是这种或那种特定的场排列——而恰恰是场的完全缺席！有些场的排列恰好对应粒子的存在，有些则不然，这并不比我手指的某些可能排列恰好对应拳头的存在、另一些则不对应更加神秘。粒子会随着场的重新排列而在时间中出现和消失，这也并不比拳头随着我手指的重新排列而在时间中出现和消失更加神秘。而且，如果你正确地看待这些出现与消失，它们中没有任何一个，哪怕稍微接近“从无中创造”。”134。

“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.

哲学上的区分。

Philosophical distinctions.

有趣的是,克劳斯教授似乎为了回答莱布尼茨那个历久弥新的问题,改变了“无”的定义。这使整个讨论产生了问题,因为克劳斯的定义模糊了一些众所周知的哲学区分。“无”一词历来指的是非存在或某物的缺失。135 因此,克劳斯所说的“无”所蕴含的是,有人断言以下内容可能是合理的:

Interestingly, Professor Krauss seems to have changed the definition of nothing in order to answer Leibniz’s perennial question. This makes the whole discussion problematic as Krauss’s definition blurs well-known philosophical distinctions. The term ‘nothing’ has always referred to non-being or the absence of something.135 Therefore, the implications of Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is that it could be reasonable for someone to assert the following:

“我昨晚吃了一顿很棒的晚餐，但那其实没什么。”

“I had a wonderful dinner last night, and it was nothing.”.

“我在大厅里没有遇到任何人，他们为我指明了去这个房间的方向。”

“I met nobody in the hall and they showed me directions to this room.”.

“没有什么东西是加了盐和胡椒就不好吃的。”136.

“Nothing is tasty with salt and pepper.”136.

这些说法是不合逻辑的陈述,因此只是无意义的命题,除非有人改变了"无"的定义。克劳斯教授的言下之意是,他所说的"无"并不指非存在,这也就不足为奇了。他写道:"然而有一点是确定的:那条形而上学的'规则'——即与我辩论创造问题的人们坚信不疑的'从无生无'——在科学上毫无根据。"137

These statements are irrational statements and therefore amount to meaningless propositions, unless of course someone changes the definition of nothing. It is no wonder that Professor Krauss hints that his view of nothing does not refer to non-being. He writes: “One thing is certain, however. The metaphysical ‘rule,’ which is held as ironclad conviction by those with whom I have debated the issue of creation, namely that ‘out of nothing, nothing comes,’ has no foundation in science.”137

这显然意味着克劳斯把“虚无”的含义改成了“某物”,因为作为一种方法,科学关注的是物理世界中的事物。科学只能用自然现象和自然过程来作答。当我们提出诸如“生命的意义是什么?”“灵魂是否存在?”“虚无是什么?”之类的问题时,人们通常期待的是形而上学的答案——因而超出了任何科学解释的范围(参见第十二章)。

This clearly means Krauss has changed the meaning of nothing to mean something, because science as a method focuses on things in the physical world. Science can only answer in terms of natural phenomena and natural processes. When we ask questions like: What is the meaning of life? Does the soul exist? What is nothing? The general expectation is to have metaphysical answers—and hence, outside the scope of any scientific explanation (see Chapter 12).

科学无法探讨"无"或"非存在"的观念，因为科学被局限于观察能够解决的问题。科学哲学家埃利奥特·索伯（Elliot Sober）印证了这一局限。他在论文《经验主义》中写道："科学被迫将其注意力限制在观察能够解决的问题上。"138 因此，克劳斯教授为了让科学解决一个它原本无法解决的问题，改变了"无"这个词的含义。或许这一结果应当被视为一种失败，因为这无异于有人无法回答一个问题，却不承认失败，也不把问题转交他人，而是转而改变问题本身的含义。

Science cannot address the idea of nothing or non-being, because science is restricted to problems that observations can solve. Philosopher of science Elliot Sober verifies this limitation. He writes in his essay Empiricism that “science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.”138 Therefore, Professor Krauss has changed the meaning of the word “nothing”, in order for science to solve a problem that it could not originally solve. Perhaps this outcome should be accepted as a defeat as it is tantamount to someone not being able to answer a question, and instead of admitting defeat or referring the question to someone else, resorting to changing the meaning of the question.

这样说在学术上会更加诚实：“无”的概念属于形而上学的范畴，而科学只研究那些能够被观察到的事物。

It would have been intellectually more honest to just say that the concept of nothing is a metaphysical concept, and science only deals with what can be observed.

不确定的研究，以及流行的语言文字游戏式的曲解。

Inconclusive research and popularising linguistic gymnastics.

撇开这些不谈，克劳斯教授承认，他关于“虚无”的研究存在歧义，缺乏确凿证据。他写道：“我特别强调‘可能’一词，因为我们或许永远无法获得足够的经验信息，来毫无歧义地解答这个问题。”139

Putting all of this aside, Professor Krauss admits that his ‘nothingness’ research is ambiguous and lacks conclusive evidence. He writes, “I stress the word could here, because we may never have enough empirical information to resolve this question unambiguously.”139

在他书的其他地方，他承认了自己论证的非结论性：“由于观测上以及相关理论上的困难，在厘清细节时，我预计我们在这方面可能永远只能达到合理性的程度。”140

Elsewhere in his book he admits the inconclusive nature of his argument: “Because of the observational and related theoretical difficulties associated with working out the details, I expect we may never achieve more than plausibility in this regard.”140.

鑒於此,克劳斯教授本应直接说宇宙来自某种物理存在,例如真空态,而不是重新定义“虚无”一词。然而克劳斯似乎执意推广他的这种文字游戏。在我们的辩论《伊斯兰教还是无神论:哪一个更合理?》中,我引用他的书来说明他所谓的“虚无”其实是某种东西,例如一种量子雾霭。然而他的回应是:他所说的“虚无”是“没有空间,没有时间,没有定律……没有宇宙,什么都没有,零,一无所有,空空如也。”141

In light of this, Professor Krauss should have just said the universe came from something physical like a vacuum state, rather than redefining the word nothing. But Krauss seems to be adamant in popularising his linguistic gymnastics. During our debate: Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense? I referred to his book to explain that his nothing is something, like some form of quantum haze. However, he reacted and said that his nothing is “No space, no time, no laws… there’s no universe, nothing, zero, zip, nada.”141

克劳斯似乎刻意省略了一个重要的隐含前提：他的"无"中仍然存在某种物理实在，这一点他在一次公开演讲中已明确承认。他说，"有"和"无"都是"……物理量"。142

Krauss seemed to have deliberately omitted an important hidden premise: there is still some physical stuff in his nothing, something which he clearly admitted to in a public lecture. He said that something and nothing are “… physical quantities.”142

总之,克劳斯教授所说的"无即是有",其实是把某种物理存在称为"无",从而未能回答莱布尼茨的问题:为什么存在的是有而不是无?事实上,克劳斯只回答了另一个问题:有如何从有而来?这是科学能够回答的问题,也不需要任何文字上的花招。

In summary, Professor Krauss’s nothing is something. The universe came from something physical which Krauss calls “nothing”, and therefore failing to answer Leibniz’s question: Why is there something rather than nothing? In reality, Krauss only answers the question: How did something come from something? That is a question that science can answer, and which does not require linguistic acrobatics.

上帝的存在并不会因克劳斯对“虚无”的看法而受到动摇。他所真正向我们展示的，只是宇宙（时间与空间）源自某种事物。因此，宇宙的存在仍然需要一个解释。

God’s existence is not undermined by Krauss’s view on nothing. All that he has really presented to us is that the universe (time and space) came from something. Therefore, the universe still requires an explanation for its existence.

“因果关系只在这个宇宙之内才有意义；因此，宇宙可能源于无。”

“Causality only makes sense within this universe; therefore, the universe may have come from nothing.”.

历史上和学术界关于因果性概念的讨论中，包括大卫·休谟的反对意见：因果性是从我们的经验中衍生出来的概念。如果休谟是对的，那么我们就没有理由断定因果性这一概念存在于我们的经验之外，或在经验之外仍有意义。由于本章的论证涉及我们经验之外的事件，即宇宙如何开始存在，因果性就不能用来解释这些事件。换言之，宇宙可能来自无，因为因果性的概念可能只在宇宙之内才有意义，而不能应用于宇宙之外的任何事物。如果我们对宇宙的起始以及其存在之前发生的事情没有任何经验，那么我们就应当对此保持沉默。

Historical and academic discussions on the notion of causality include David Hume’s objection that causality is a concept derived from our experiences. If Hume is right about causality, then we are not justified in postulating that the concept of causality exists or makes sense outside of our experiences. Since the argument in this chapter refers to events outside of our experience—how the universe came into existence—causality cannot be used to explain these events. In other words, the universe could have come from nothing, because the notion of causality may only make sense within the universe and cannot be applied to anything outside of it. If we have no experience of the beginning of the universe or what happened prior to its existence, then we should simply stay silent on the matter.

这种反驳错误地假定因果性是一个基于经验的概念。因果性是先验的;是先于经验的知识。它是一个形而上学的概念,是我们理解自身经验所必需的。我们是把它带入所有经验之中,而不是经验把它带给我们。这就像戴着黄色的眼镜,一切看起来都是黄色的,并不是因为外面的世界有什么东西,而是因为我们透过来观看一切的眼镜。没有因果性,我们就无法对世界形成有意义的理解。请考虑以下例子:设想你正在观看华盛顿的白宫。你的目光可能先落在大门上,然后移到柱廊,再到屋顶,最后转向前面的草坪。你也可以颠倒感知的顺序:先看草坪,再看屋顶,然后是柱廊,最后是大门。现在对比另一种经验:你在伦敦的泰晤士河上,看到一条船从眼前漂过。你只能先看到船头,然后才看到船尾,而且随着船漂过,这一经验的顺序无法颠倒。当你看白宫时,你可以选择先看大门,再看柱廊等等;你也可以颠倒感知的顺序。但看船时,你没有选择余地。船头最先出现,你无法通过先试图看船尾来重新安排你的感知顺序。是什么决定了你这些经验发生的顺序?为什么你知道什么时候可以安排自己的感知顺序,什么时候不能?答案就是因果性的概念。在你感知白宫和船只的同时,你的心中发生着逻辑上的因果联系。

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.

要点在于：如果你没有因果性的概念，你就不可能区分哪些经验是由你自己主导的，哪些是独立于你而发生的。在没有因果性的情况下，我们的经验将与现在大不相同，它们只会是一个单一的经验序列：一件事接着另一件事。因果性独立于经验，因为没有它，我们就不可能体验任何事物。因此，从逻辑上可以推出，因果性先于我们对宇宙的经验而存在。

The point to take here is that you would not have been able to make the distinction that some experiences are ordered by yourself and others are ordered independently, unless you had the concept of causality. In absence of causality, our experiences would be very different from the way that they are. They would be a single sequence of experiences only: one thing after another. Causality is independent of experience because we would not be able to experience anything without it. Therefore, it logically follows that causality exists prior to our experience of the universe.

如果无中不能生有，那么真主是如何从无中创造的呢？

If you cannot have something from nothing, then how did God create from nothing?.

这一论点是错误的，因为它暗示真主即是虚无。真主是独一的行为主体，具有凭其意志与大能进行创造、使事物存在的潜能。因此，这并不是"从无生有"的情形。真主的意志与大能正是使宇宙存在的因果条件。"从无生有"是不可能的，因为"无"意味着非存在，没有潜能，也没有因果条件。断言某物能够从绝对的虚空中涌现，而没有任何潜能或先前的因果活动，是不合理的。真主借由祂的意志与大能提供了这种因果活动。伊斯兰思想传统虽然称真主"从无中创造"，但这种创造行为意味着并不存在任何质料，却并不预设没有因果条件或潜能。

This contention is false, as it implies that God is nothing. God is a unique agent with the potential to create and bring things into existence through His will and power. Therefore, it is not the case of something coming from nothing. God’s will and power were the causal conditions to bring the universe into existence. Something coming from nothing is impossible, because nothing implies non-being, no potential and no causal conditions. It is irrational to assert that something can emerge from an absolute void without any potential or prior causal activity. God provides that causal activity via His will and power. Even though the Islamic intellectual tradition refers to God creating from nothing, this act of creation means that there was no material stuff. However, it does not assume that there were no causal conditions or potential.

真主的意志与权能构成了使宇宙存在的因果条件。

143 God’s will and power form the causal conditions to bring the universe into existence.

自我创造？

Self-created?.

宇宙能否自我创造?"创造"一词指某物出现,因此它曾经并不存在。说某物被创造,另一种说法是它被带入存在。所有这些词都暗示着有限性,因为所有被创造的事物都是有限的。理解创造的概念,使我们得出结论:自我创造在逻辑上和实际上都是不可能的。这是因为自我创造意味着某物同时存在又不存在,这是不可能的。某物出现意味着它曾经不存在;然而,说它创造了自己,则意味着它在存在之前就已经存在了!请思考这个问题:你的母亲有可能生下她自己吗?声称这样的事情,就等于暗示她必须在出生之前就已出生。当某物被创造时,意味着它曾经不存在,因此没有能力做任何事情。所以声称它创造了自己是不可能的,因为在被创造之前,它不可能拥有任何能力来创造自己。这适用于所有有限的事物,宇宙也包括在内。伊斯兰学者阿尔-哈塔比精辟地总结了这一论证的谬误:

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:

“这是一个更加站不住脚的论证，因为如果某物并不存在，又怎能被描述为拥有能力？它又怎能创造任何事物？它又怎能做任何事情？如果这两种论证都被驳倒，那么便可以确定他们有一位创造者，那就让他们信仰祂吧。”144

“This is [an] even more fallacious argument, because if something does not exist, how can it be described as having power, and how could it create anything? How could it do anything? If these two arguments are refuted, then it is established that they have a creator, so let them believe in Him.”144

安德鲁·康普森（Andrew Compson）是英国人文主义协会（British Humanist Association）现任主席，他曾与我在伯明翰大学进行过一场公开辩论。我当时提出了《古兰经》中关于真主存在的论证。他对我"自我创造不可能"这一论断的回应是：自我创造可以在单细胞生物中找到，这在生物学中也被称为无性繁殖。 安德鲁的反驳在几个方面站不住脚。首先，他所说的单细胞生物现象并非自我创造，而是一种繁殖方式：后代由单一个体产生，且只继承该亲本的遗传物质。其次，如果我们将他的例子从逻辑上延伸到宇宙，那就预设了宇宙始终存在，因为要发生无性繁殖，就必须有一个先于后代存在的亲本。因此，他的反驳实际上恰恰证明了我所表达的观点：宇宙曾经并不存在，所以它不可能使自己存在。 你或许会觉得这个反驳很荒谬，没有必要讨论。我同意。然而，我之所以将其列入，是为了说明某些无神论者的反驳可以多么不合情理。

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.

被另一个受造之物所创造的吗？

Created by something else that was created?.

为了辩论起见，我们假设回答“是”：宇宙是被另一个被造之物所创造的。这样的回答能让提问者满意吗？显然不能。这位好辩的人必定会问：“那么，又是什么创造了那个东西？”如果我们回答“又是另一个被造之物”，你认为他会说什么呢？没错，你猜对了：“那又是什么创造了那个东西？”如果这种荒谬的对话永远持续下去，那就只能证明一件事：需要一位非被造的创造者。

For argument sake, let’s answer “yes” to the following question: Was the universe created by something else created? Will that satisfy the questioner? Obviously not. The contentious person will undoubtedly ask, “Then, what created that thing?” If we were to answer, “Another created thing”, what do you think he would say? Yes, you guessed right: “What created that thing?” If this ridiculous dialogue continued forever, then it would prove one thing: the need for an uncreated creator.

为什么？因为我们不可能出现这样的情况：一个被造之物，例如宇宙，是由另一个被造之物所创造，而这种因果关系无限地向过去延伸（即所谓的因果无穷倒推）。这显然讲不通。请看以下例子：

Why? Because we cannot have the case of a created thing, like the universe, being created by another created thing in an unlimited series going back forever (known as an infinite regress of causes). It simply does not make sense. Consider the following examples:

想象一名狙击手已经锁定了指定目标，他通过无线电与指挥部联络，请求开枪许可。

• Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot.

总部却告诉狙击手稍等，因为他们要向更高层请示。随后，更高层的人又去向更上面的人请示，如此层层上报，永无止境。如果这样无休止地持续下去，狙击手最终能够开枪击中目标吗？当然不能！他将一直等待，而其他人也在等待更高一级的人下达命令。必定存在一个发出命令的源头，一个再无更高权威的地方或人。因此，这个例子说明了无限追溯因果链这一观点在理性上的缺陷。将此推及宇宙，我们必须假定它有一个非受造的创造者。宇宙是受造之物，不可能由另一个受造之物创造，如此无穷无尽。若果真如此，这个宇宙便不会存在。既然宇宙存在，我们便可以否定因果无限追溯的观点，因为它是一个非理性的命题。145.

HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy even higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, our example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. If that were the case this universe would not exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition.145.

• 试想，若股票交易员在证券交易所买卖股票或债券之前，都必须先征得投资人的许可；而投资人批准之后，他又必须再向自己的投资人请示。如果这样的程序无休止地延续下去，那么这位股票交易员还能买卖股票或债券吗？答案是否定的。必定存在一位投资人，他在给予许可时无需任何人的许可。以此类推，若将这一道理应用于宇宙，我们就必须承认，宇宙有一位无始的创造者。

• Imagine if a stock trader at the stock exchange was not able to buy or sell his stocks or bonds before asking permission from the investor. Once the stock trader asked his investor, he also had to check with his investor. Imagine if this went on forever. Would the stock trader ever buy or sell his stocks or bonds? The answer is no. There must be an investor who gives the permission without requiring any permission himself. In similar light, if we apply this to the universe, we would have to posit a creator for the universe that is uncreated.

一旦将上述例子直接应用于宇宙,便会凸显这样一种荒谬之处:认为宇宙最终是由某个被造之物所创造的,这种观点本身就是荒谬的。试设想这个宇宙U1是由某个先前的原因U2所创造的,而U2又是由另一个原因U3所创造的,如此无限延续下去。那么我们根本就不会有宇宙U1。换个角度思考:U1何时出现?只有在U2出现之后。U2何时出现?只有在U3出现之后。即使无限推移下去,这同样的问题依然存在。如果U1存在的能力依赖于一条无穷无尽的被造宇宙链条,那么U1将永远不会存在。146 伊斯兰哲学家与学者贾法尔·伊德里斯博士写道:

Once the above examples are applied to the universe directly, it will highlight the absurdity of the idea that the universe ultimately was created by something created. Consider if this universe, U1, was created by a prior cause, U2, and U2 was created by another cause, U3, and this went on forever. We wouldn’t have universe U1 in the first place. Think about it this way, when does U1 come into being? Only after U2 has come into being. When does U2 come into being? Only after U3 has come into being. This same problem will continue even if we go on forever. If the ability of U1 to come into being was dependent on a forever chain of created universes, U1 would never exist.146 As Islamic philosopher and scholar Dr. Jaafar Idris writes:

“那么就不会有实际原因的系列，而只会有一系列不存在的事物……然而事实是，我们周围确实存在着事物：”

“There would be no series of actual causes, but only a series of non-existents… The fact, however, is that there are existents around us:

因此,它们的终极原因必定是某种超越于世俗因果之外的东西。147

therefore, their ultimate cause must be something other than temporal causes.”147

由无始者所造?

Created by something uncreated?.

那么,另一种选择是什么呢?另一种选择是第一因,换言之,一个无因之因,或一个非受造的创造者。11世纪的神学家与哲学家安萨里(Al-Ghazali)以如下方式概括了这一无因之因或非受造创造者的存在:"对于原因的原因,也可以同样说。现在,这一过程要么无限延续下去,这是荒谬的,要么它必定会终止。"148

So, what is the alternative? The alternative is a first cause. In other words, an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator. The 11th century theologian and philosopher Al-Ghazali summarised the existence of an uncaused cause or an uncreated creator in the following way: “The same can be said of the cause of the cause. Now this can either go on ad infinitum, which is absurd, or it will come to an end.”148

其实上述讨论的核心意思是：必然有某种东西一直存在。现在摆在面前的显然有两种选择：上帝或宇宙。既然宇宙有开端，并且是依赖性的存在（参见第六章），它就不可能一直存在。因此，一直存在的东西必定是上帝。在安东尼·弗卢（Anthony Flew）教授的著作《有上帝存在》的附录中，哲学家亚伯拉罕·瓦尔盖塞（Abraham Varghese）以简单而有力的方式阐述了这一结论。他写道：“现在，显然有神论者和无神论者可以在一点上达成一致：如果有任何东西存在，那么在它之前必定有某种一直存在的东西。这个永恒存在的实在是如何产生的呢？答案是它从未被产生，它一直存在。二者任选其一：上帝或宇宙。总有某种东西一直存在。”149

What the above discussion is essentially saying is that something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe began and is dependent (see Chapter 6), it cannot have always existed. Therefore, something that always existed must be God. In the appendix to Professor Anthony Flew’s book There is a God, the philosopher Abraham Varghese explains this conclusion in a simple yet forceful way. He writes: “Now, clearly, theists and atheists can agree on one thing: if anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe. Something always existed.”149.

因此,我们可以得出结论:对于每一个被造之物,都存在一位非被造的造物主。这一论证的力量,从先知穆罕默德ﷺ的同伴朱拜尔·本·穆特igm的反应中可见一斑。当他听到古兰经中论及此论证的相关经文时,他说:"我的心几乎要飞翔起来了。"^150 学者阿勒-海坦比说,朱拜尔之所以如此感动,是因为"其中蕴含的有力证据触动了他敏锐的天性,而他以自己的智慧理解了它。"151

Thus, we can conclude that there exists an uncreated creator for everything that is created. The power of this argument is captured in the reaction of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم Jubayr ibn Mut’im. When he heard the relevant verses of the Qur’an addressing this argument he said, “my heart almost began to soar.”150 The scholar Al-Khattabi said that the reason Jubayr was so moved by these verses was because of “the strong evidence contained therein touched his sensitive nature, and with his intelligence understood it.”151

目前已经确立的是，必定存在一位非受造的创造者。这并不意味着传统意义上的神的概念。然而，如果我们仔细思考这位非受造的创造者，便能得出一些结论，从而导向传统意义上对神的理解。

What has been established so far is that there must be an uncreated creator. This does not imply the traditional concept of God. However, if we think carefully about the uncreated creator, we can form conclusions that lead to the traditional understanding of God.

永恒。

Eternal.

既然这位造物主是非受造的，这意味着祂一直存在。没有开端的事物一直存在，而一直存在的事物就是永恒的。《古兰经》对此说得非常明确："真主是永久无求的主。祂没有生育，也没有被生育。"152

Since this creator is uncreated, it means that it was always in existence. Something that did not begin has always existed, and something that has always existed is eternal. The Qur’an makes this very clear: “God, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born.”152.

谁创造了真主？

Who created God?.

对于神的永恒性，一种典型的回应是那句过时的无神论陈词滥调：“谁创造了神？”这种幼稚的质疑，严重歪曲并误解了我在本章中所阐述的论证。对此，主要有两种回应。

A typical response to the eternality of the Divine is the outdated atheist cliché: Who created God? This childish contention is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the argument I have been elucidating in this chapter. There are two main responses to this objection.

首先，我们讨论过宇宙如何产生的第三种可能性：宇宙是否可能由某个被创造的东西所创造？我们讨论后认为这终究不可能，因为原因无限回溯是荒谬的。结论很简单：必定存在一位未被创造的创造者。未被创造，意味着真主并非被造。我已经举出了几个例子来说明这一事实。 其次，一旦我们得出结论，宇宙出现的最佳解释是真主的概念，那么再坚持认为有人创造了祂，就是不合逻辑的。真主创造了宇宙，并不受其法则的约束；按其定义，祂是未被创造的存在，祂从未开始存在。从未有过开端的事物，不可能被创造。约翰·伦诺克斯教授以如下方式阐述了这些观点：

Firstly, the third possibility that we discussed concerning how the universe came into being was: Could it be created by something created? We discussed that this was ultimately not possible because of the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes. The conclusion was simple: there must have been an uncreated creator. Being uncreated means God was not created. I have already presented a few examples to highlight this fact. Secondly, once we have concluded that the best explanation for the emergence of the universe is the concept of God, it would be illogical to maintain that someone created Him. God created the universe and is not bound by its laws; He is, by definition, an uncreated Being, and He never came into existence. Something that never began cannot be created. Professor John Lennox explains these points in the following way:

“我能听到一位爱尔兰朋友说：‘嗯，这证明了一件事——如果144。

“I can hear an Irish friend saying: ‘Well, it proves one thing- if144.

“他们若有更好的论据，早就会用上了。”如果你觉得这种反应太过激烈，不妨想一想这个问题：谁创造了神？提出这个问题本身就表明，提问者心中已经把神设想成了一个被创造的存在。那么，理查德·道金斯把自己的书命名为《上帝的妄念》，也就不足为奇了。因为被创造的神，几乎从定义上说就是一种妄念——早在道金斯几个世纪以前，色诺芬尼就已指出过这一点。一个更能说明问题的书名或许应当是：《被创造之神的妄念》。这样一来，全书或许可以缩成一本小册子，但销量恐怕会因此受影响……因为那位创造并维系宇宙的真主，是未被创造的，他是永恒的。他不是被“制造”出来的，因而也不受科学所发现的那些定律的约束；恰恰相反，是他创造了宇宙及其定律。事实上，这一点正是神与宇宙之间的根本区别。宇宙有其始端，神则没有。”153

they had a better argument, they would use it.’ If that is thought to be a rather strong reaction, just think of the question: Who made God? The very asking of it shows that the questioner has created God in mind. It is then scarcely surprising that one calls one's book The God Delusion. For that is precisely what a created god is, a delusion, virtually by definition—as Xenophanes pointed out centuries before Dawkins. A more informative title might have been: The Created-God Delusion. The book could then have been reduced to a pamphlet—but sales might just have suffered… For the God who created and upholds the universe was not created—He is eternal. He was not ‘made’ and therefore subject to the laws that science discovered; it was he who made the universe with its laws. Indeed, the fact constitutes the fundamental distinction between God and the universe. The universe came to be, God did not.”153.

超越的

Transcendent.

这位非受造的创造者不可能是受造物的一部分。一个有助于说明这一点的例子是木匠制作椅子。在设计和制作椅子的过程中,他并不会变成椅子,他与椅子是分离的。这同样适用于非受造的创造者。他创造了宇宙,因此他与他所创造的事物是分离的。神学家和学者伊本·泰米叶认为,"受造"一词意味着某物与神是分离的。154

This uncreated creator cannot be part of creation. A useful example to illustrate this is when a carpenter makes a chair. In the process of designing and creating the chair, he does not become the chair. He is distinct from the chair. This applies to the uncreated creator as well. He created the universe and therefore is distinct from what He created. The theologian and scholar Ibn Taymiyya argued that the term, “created”, implied that something was distinct from God.154

如果造物主属于受造物的一部分,那就意味着祂是有所依赖的、受限于物理属性的存在。如此一来,祂的存在就需要有一个解释,这也就表明祂不可能是真主(参见第六章)。

If the creator was part of creation, it would make Him contingent or dependent with limited physical qualities. This, in turn, would mean that He would require an explanation for His existence, which would imply He cannot be God (see Chapter 6).

《古兰经》确认了真主的超越性。经文说：“万物莫能似之。”155

The Qur’an affirms the transcendence of God. It says, “There is nothing like unto Him.”155.

知道。

Knowing.

这位无始的造物主必然具有知识,因为祂所创造的宇宙具有既定的规律。这些规律包括万有引力定律、弱相互作用力与强相互作用力,以及电磁力(见第八章)。这些规律意味着存在一位立法者,而立法者则意味着拥有知识。《古兰经》说:"真主确是万事的全知者。"156

This uncreated creator must have knowledge because the universe that He created has established laws. These include the law of gravity, the weak and strong nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force (see Chapter 8). These laws imply there is a lawgiver, and a lawgiver implies knowledge. The Qur’an says, “Indeed God is, of all things, Knowing.”156.

强大。

Powerful.

这位非受造的创造者必定是全能的,因为祂创造了宇宙,而宇宙蕴含着巨大的能量,既有可以利用的能量,也有潜在的能量。以可观测宇宙中的原子数量为例,约为1080.157个。

This uncreated creator must be powerful because He created the universe, and the universe has immense energy, both usable and potential. Take, for instance, the number of atoms in the observable universe, which is around 1080.157.

如果将其中的一个原子裂变，它会释放出巨大的能量——这就是所谓的核裂变。一个被创造的、拥有可用能量和潜在能量的事物，不可能从自身获得这些能量。归根结底，它来自造物主，而造物主必定是全能的。

If you were to take just one of these atoms and split it, it would release an immense amount of energy— known as nuclear fission. A created thing with usable and potential energy could not have acquired that from itself. Ultimately, it came from the Creator, who in turn must be powerful.

如果造物主没有能力，那就意味着祂是无能、无力和软弱的。既然宇宙已经被创造出来，这就是一个简单的证明：祂必定拥有能力与权能。现在，请你静下心来思考宇宙及其中的一切，想象一下造物主的伟大权能。《古兰经》申明了真主的大能：

If the creator did not have power, it would mean that He is unable, incapable and weak. Since the universe was created, it is a simple proof that He must have ability and power. Now just imagine the immense power of the Creator by reflecting on the universe and all that it contains. The Qur’an asserts the power of God:

“真主创造他所意欲的，因为真主对万物都有能力。”158.

“God creates what He wills for verily God has power over all things.”158.

全能悖论

The omnipotence paradox.

伊斯兰教关于真主能力的立场，可以用《泰哈维信条》中的一段信条性陈述来概括。其中写道："祂是全能的。万物都依赖于祂，每一件事对祂而言都毫不费力。"159

The Islamic position regarding God’s ability is summed up in the following creedal statement found in The Creed of Imam Al-Tahawi. It states, “He is Omnipotent. Everything is dependent on Him, and every affair is effortless for Him.”159

然而,对神的全能提出的一个常见反驳是全能悖论。这涉及全能者是否有能力限制自己的力量。由此提出的问题是:如果神是全能的,祂能否创造一块祂自己无法移动的石头?要回答这个问题,需要先厘清“全能”一词的含义。它意味着能够实现每一种可能的事情。全能也包括不可能失败。然而,提问者却说,既然神是全能的,祂就能做任何事,包括失败。这是不合理且荒谬的,因为这等同于说“一个全能者不能是全能者”。未能达成或做成某事并不是全能的特征。从这个角度看,神“创造一块祂无法移动的石头”的能力,实际上描述的是一件不可能且毫无意义的事情。

However, a common objection to God’s power is the omnipotence paradox. This concerns the ability of an All-Powerful Being to limit its power. The question that is raised is: If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone He cannot move? To answer this question, the meaning of ‘omnipotence’ needs to be clarified. What it implies is the ability to realise every possible affair. Omnipotence also includes the impossibility of failure. The questioner, however, is saying that since God is All-Powerful, He is capable of anything, including failure. This is irrational and absurd, as it is equivalent to saying “an All-Powerful Being cannot be an All-Powerful Being”. Failure to achieve or do something is not a feature of omnipotence. From this perspective, the ability of God to “create a stone He cannot move” actually describes an event that is impossible and meaningless.

这个问题并没有描述一种可能的事情,就像我们说“白色的黑乌鸦”或“圆形的三角形”一样。这类说法什么也没有描述,没有任何信息价值,毫无意义。那么,我们为什么还要回答一个没有意义的问题呢?直截了当地说,这根本不是一个真正的问题。

The question does not describe a possible affair, just as if we were to say “a white black crow” or “a circle triangle”. Such statements describe nothing at all; they have no informative value and are meaningless. So why should we even answer a question that has no meaning? To put it bluntly, the question is not even a question.

在讨论《古兰经》经文“真主对万物都有能力”时,经注学者古尔土比在其注释中解释说,真主的能力涵盖每一种可能的状态:“此经文是普遍性的……它的意思是,允许以大能这一属性来描述真主。穆斯林学者一致认为,真主有“全能者”这一名称……真主对每一种可能性都有能力,无论它被使其存在,还是保持不存在。”161

In his discussion of the Qur’anic verse, “God has power over all things”,160 classical scholar Al-Qurtubi explains that God’s power refers to every possible state of affairs: “This [verse] is general… it means that it is permitted to describe God with the attribute of power. The community agree that God has the name The-Powerful… God has power over every possibility whether it is brought into existence or remains non-existent.”161

总之，真主能够创造一块重到我们无法想象的石头，但祂始终能够移动这块石头，因为失败不是全能的属性。162。

To conclude, God can create a stone that is heavier than anything we can imagine, but He will always be able to move the stone because failure is not a feature of omnipotence.162.

愿意。

Will.

这位无始的创造者必定拥有意志，原因有几点。首先，既然这位创造者是永恒的，并且使一个有限的宇宙存在，那么它必定是选择了让宇宙存在。这位创造者是在宇宙尚未存在、且本可以一直不存在的情况下，选择让宇宙存在的。能够作出选择的事物，显然具有意志。其次，宇宙中存在着具有自觉意志和意愿的生命。因此，创造了这些具有意志的生命的那一位，也必定拥有意志。一个人不能给予自己所不具有的东西（或使不包含某物的事物产生某物）。因此，造物主拥有意志。

This uncreated creator must have a will for a number of reasons. Firstly, since this creator is eternal and brought into existence a finite universe, it must have chosen the universe to come into existence. This creator must have chosen the universe to come into existence when the universe was non-existent and could have remained so. Something that has a choice obviously has a will. Secondly, the universe contains beings that have a conscious will and volition. Therefore, the one who created the universe with living beings that have a will must also have a will. One cannot give something to a thing that one does not have (or give rise to something that one does not contain). Therefore, the Creator has a will.

第三，我们可以用两种类型的解释来说明宇宙的创造。第一种是科学解释，第二种是个人解释。让我用泡茶来说明。要泡一杯茶，我必须先烧开一些水，把茶包放进杯子里，再让它浸泡。这一过程可以用科学来解释：水在达到沸点之前必须加热到100摄氏度（华氏212度），水分子必须穿过半透膜（茶包），而我必须消耗糖原储备，使肌肉收缩、移动四肢，从而确保这一切得以发生。显然，一位训练有素的科学家可以进一步详细阐述，但我想你已经明白我的意思。反过来，整个过程也可以用个人的方式来解释：茶之所以泡好，是因为我想喝茶。现在我们把这一点应用到宇宙上。我们并没有关于造物主如何创造宇宙的观察或经验证据，我们只能依靠个人解释，即真主选择让宇宙存在。即使我们拥有科学解释，它也不会否定个人解释，正如茶的例子所示。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

《古兰经》确认了真主有意志这一事实："你的主所欲者，必能成就。"164

The Qur’an affirms the fact that God has a will: “Your Lord carries out whatever He wills.”164

伊斯兰学者安萨里以精辟的语言概括了神拥有意志所蕴含的意义。他断言，凡所发生之事皆由神的意志所致，没有任何事物能够逃脱其范围：

Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali presents an eloquent summary of the implications of God having a will. He asserts that everything that happens is due to God’s will and nothing can escape it:

我们作证，祂是万有的意欲者，是一切被造事物的主宰。在可见与不可见的世界中，无论微小或巨大，无论少许或丰多，无论善或恶，无论利或害，无论信或不信，无论知或不知，无论成功或失败，无论增长或减少，无论顺从或违抗，都不会发生，除非出于祂的意志。祂所意欲的必定成就，祂所不意欲的必定不成。眼睛的一瞥，心中的一念，都在祂的意志之下。祂是创造者，是复原者，是随意而为者。没有人能废止祂的命令，没有人能增补祂的定命，没有人能使仆人远离对祂的违抗，除非凭借祂的帮助与慈悯；也没有人有能力顺从祂，除非出于祂的意志。”165。

“We attest that He is the Willer of all things that are, the ruler of all originated phenomena; there does not come into the visible or invisible world anything meagre or plenteous, small or great, good or evil, or any advantage or disadvantage, belief or unbelief, knowledge or ignorance, success or failure, increase or decrease, obedience or disobedience, except by His will. What He wills is, and what He does not, will not; there is not a glance of the eye, nor a stray thought of the heart that is not subject to His will. He is the Creator, the Restorer, the Doer of whatsoever He wills. There is none that rescinds His command, none that supplements His decrees, none that dissuades a servant from disobeying Him, except by His help and mercy, and none has power to obey Him except by His will.”165.

关于因果、时间与大爆炸的说明。

A Note on Causality, Time and The Big Bang.

一些反对者认为，因果关系只有在时间中才有意义。他们主张，既然时间始于大爆炸，那么我们就不能说有某物造成了宇宙，因为在大爆炸开始的那一刻并不存在"之前"。在没有时间的情况下，"没有因，也没有果，因为因必定先于果。"166

Some objectors argue that causality only makes sense with time. They maintain that since time began at the Big Bang, we cannot claim something caused the universe because there was no ‘before’ at the beginning of the Big Bang. In absence of time, there is “no cause or effect, because cause comes before effect.”166

这个反对意见存在几个问题。167.

There are a few problems with this objection.167.

• 认为因果关系只有在时间中才能成立的观点，需要加以证明。在哲学中，关于因果性的定义与本质并无共识。有各种不同的进路试图界定并理解因果性及因果关系。其中一种进路是同时因果论。这一观点认为“原因总是与其直接结果同时发生”。168 有人可能会主张，宇宙与其原因是同时发生的。下面的思想实验可以说明这种因果关系。设想一个永恒的球放在一个永恒的枕头上。球造成了枕头的凹陷，但原因（球）并不先于结果（枕头上的凹陷）出现；由于这些对象是永恒的，时间并不是一个因素。169 在这一论证的语境中，可以认为上帝使宇宙存在的那一刻，也正是宇宙开始存在的那一刻。这种类型的因果关系是非时间性的。这意味着原因（在此即上帝的意志与权能）在因果上先于结果，但在时间上并不先于结果。原因与结果是同时发生的。

• 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.

• 它预设科学界对时间的概念已有共识。量子力学与广义相对论中的时间概念并不相同。假定只有一种时间概念，就是对文献的歪曲。170.

• It assumes there is a consensus on the notion of time in science. There are different notions of time in quantum mechanics and general relativity. To assume that there is one conception of time misrepresents the literature.170.

• 这一反驳是自相矛盾的。如果因果关系不能在时间之外存在，那么大爆炸就应当被否定。鉴于在大爆炸奇点处没有时间，只有时间的边界，而且这一边界显然与宇宙其余部分存在因果联系，那么在没有时间的情况下，这种因果关系如何能够成立？如果反对者接受边界与宇宙其余部分之间存在因果联系，那么他们也应当接受：当真主决定显现其意志与权能以创造宇宙时，同样存在这种超越时间的因果关系。171 如果他们坚持认为因果关系在时间之外毫无意义，那么他们就必须否定奇点边界与宇宙其余部分之间的因果联系，而这等同于否定宇宙的存在。反对者可以辩称，一些物理学家认为宇宙没有边界。然而，这一问题存在争议，并无定论。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

鉴于关于因果性的本质尚无共识，且时间的概念也存在争议，上文的反驳并不构成对本章所提论证的削弱性反驳（undercutting defeater）。

Given that there isn’t a consensus on the nature of causality and the concept of time is contested, the objection above is not an undercutting defeater to the argument presented in this chapter.

尽管本章所提出的论证还面临其他反对意见，但这些意见都不构成驳斥性的反驳（defeater）。这意味着，即便这些反对意见无法得到回应，该论证依然保有其理性的说服力。尽管如此，仍有一些问题对这一论证提出了挑战，包括：如果宇宙的创造者是永恒的，那么为什么宇宙会在那个特定时刻开始存在，而不是从永恒中就已存在？如果上帝是至高完美且超越的，是什么促使祂进行创造？上帝是否需要创造，才能拥有完美的属性？这些问题已在一篇题为《宇宙论的卡拉姆论证与神圣创造能动性及目的问题》的论文中得到了深入而富有见地的探讨。173

Although there are other objections to the argument presented in this chapter, they do not qualify as defeaters. This means that even if these objections could not be responded to, the argument would still maintain its rational force. Nevertheless, there are some questions that challenge this argument, including: If the Creator of the universe is eternal, why did the universe begin to exist when it did, instead of existing from eternity? If God is maximally perfect and transcendent, what caused Him to create at all? Does God require creation in order to possess attributes of perfection? These questions have been intelligently addressed in a paper entitled The Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Problem of Divine Creative Agency and Purpose.173.

在本章中，我们已经看到，《古兰经》为真主的存在提供了一个直观而有力的论证。既然宇宙是有限的，它就有一个开端。如果它有开端，那么对它的解释可以是：它从虚无中产生，自己创造了自己，被某个受造之物所创造，或者被某个非受造之物所创造。理性的答案是：宇宙是由一位非受造的创造者所造，这位创造者超越万物、全知、全能，并且拥有意志。这位创造者还必须是独一的，但这一点将在第十章中讨论。

In this chapter, we have seen that the Qur’an provides an intuitive and powerful argument for God’s existence. Since the universe is finite, it had a beginning. If it began, then it can be explained as coming from nothing, creating itself, being ultimately created by something created or being created by something uncreated. The rational answer is that the universe was brought into being by an uncreated creator who is transcendent, knowing, powerful and has a will. This creator must also be uniquely one, but that will be discussed in Chapter 10.

本章的论证依赖于宇宙必定是有限的这一事实。然而，下面的论证表明，即使宇宙没有开端，它仍然必然指向真主的存在。 Note on the rule: the original says "God", so I've used 真主 (the standard Chinese Islamic term for God) rather than "Allah" as required by the rule set; the translation is as produced.

The argument of this chapter relies on the fact that the universe must be finite. However, the following argument shows that even if the universe did not have a beginning, it still necessitates God’s existence.