Appendix 1 – A Rational Investigation of the Purpose of Life
Atheists and the ‘Multi-verse argument’
When we think about the existence of finite and limited objects, the only explanation that our thoughts can conclude is that there must exist a First Cause. Without a First Cause, nothing would exist, as finite objects would have come from nothing, or would have had no start point at all. This would be absurd, as it would not explain why these objects possessed specific attributes that they did not give themselves.
In the past, Atheist thinkers have advanced the idea that finite objects came about as a result of being caused by another, previous set of finite objects, which in turn were caused by others, ad infinitum. However, this would mean that any specific finite thing had come from an infinitely long chain of points prior to its own existence. Since infinity cannot be exhausted or traversed, it would be impossible for any point on this infinitely long chain to ever be reached, or even pinpointed. Equally, it can be observed that an ‘infinite chain’ of causes would ultimately have no start point – this is no different from claiming that something comes from nothing. The concept of infinite chains of things, which depend on the existence of a prior thing in the chain, ends up with no ultimate cause, and consequently is called the ‘infinite regression fallacy’ in philosophy.
Whilst many Atheist scientists are now forced to admit the existence of a First Cause to the universe, they still insist on maintaining intellectual bias in their work, and continue to deny the First Cause possessing any will or intentionality. They claim that this First Cause does not possess will or intention, and so must be random. They argue that the reason that our universe came into being was not as a result of choice or will by this First Cause, but rather due to it randomly creating an infinite number of possible universes, which would guarantee that every possible universe would exist – including ours.
This theory is called the ‘Multi-verse’ even though there exists no scientific evidence for the existence of infinite numbers of other universes, nor the randomness of the First Cause called ‘the Multi-verse’ – but by mentioning it in scientific theories and promoting discourse amongst scientists, the general public are being falsely led to believe it to be a theory based upon scientific evidence.
The assumption that there is an infinite number of universes caused by a random ‘universe generator’ (i.e. the Multi-verse) has blinded people to a fundamental rational problem with the concept of the Multi-verse. The first problem is whether we can scientifically prove or disprove a concept that was mentally conjured up from nothing, namely that there exists an infinite number of universes alongside us. By inventing the concept of a ‘multi-verse’, Atheists have fallen victim to the accusation they most commonly level at others, namely, inventing fantasies to fill in the gaps of their worldview.
However, this is not the only problem Atheists face if they use the ‘multi-verse’ to explain why the universe we inhabit was brought into existence. Atheists now have to answer the question: what makes the Multi-verse create universes in the first place?
This question is followed by a subsequent question: that for each particular universe created by the Multi-verse, why did it create each universe with the specific or unique characteristics it possesses? What decided what each universe would turn out to be?
If the bias of Atheism compels Atheists to eliminate the possibility of intentionality (or will) in the First Cause, then there can remain only two explanations for why the Multi-verse creates universes: either the Multi-verse possesses a mechanism inside itself that causes it to make universes, or the Multi-verse is compelled to make universes by something outside it.
The first possibility is that the Multi-verse is made to create universes by an internal mechanism. For example, the hands of a clock tell the time only because there is an internal mechanism that moves them into position.
Having an internal mechanism means that there is something which makes universes that is more fundamental than the Multi-verse. This mechanism would then be the actual First Cause – not the Multi-verse itself. However, we would still have to ask why this more fundamental mechanism causes the Multi-verse to make universes?
If this mechanism consisted of a number of different components which could interact with each other it would be finite and limited, since only things that are limited can interact with each other. This is because the interaction between objects means that these objects impose a limit upon each other. For example, a nail interacts with a plank of wood, by pushing down on the wood to affix it to a position. Simultaneously, the wood interacts with the nail by holding the nail in its place. If the nail was infinitely large, the wood could not contain it, and if the wood was infinitely large, there could be no place at all for the nail.
Of course, the existence of limits amongst the components of the internal mechanism within the Multi-verse, would mean the Multi-verse is not infinite (as it is comprised of limited components). Furthermore, more questions can be raised, including what created these limited components and what assigned each component to its function?, If the answer is again something else ad infinitum, then this would begin another infinite regress, which has been already demonstrated to be an impossibility.
Alternatively,if this mechanism was said to consist of only one infinite component, then it ceases to be a mechanism, and the question would need to be asked, what is making that one infinite component create universes? This is like saying that if we open up a clock, to see what is making the clock hands move; there is a smaller clock inside. The question as to what are making the clock hands move is still not answered conclusively, but merely moved on to another mysterious object.
This would bring us full circle back to where we started with the problem behind the ‘Multi-verse’ explanation, i.e. with no answers at all.
Now we have rationally disproved the first possibility, let us examine the second possibility. The second possibility is that something else outside the Multi-verse is causing it to create universes, but this results in the same problem as the first explanation above. In this explanation, the Multi-verse is still not the First Cause of creating universes, but rather it is this ‘something else’ instead that would then be the First Cause. Secondly, for something else to affect the state and behaviour of the Multi-verse means it is being ‘physically interacted’ with by something else. To be physically interacted with means that the Multi-verse is a limited and finite object, because limits are what allow an object to be interacted with and affected by other things, which means it cannot be an infinite and unlimited thing.
After examination, we see that both the options of either an external cause compelling a Multi-verse to create universes, or an internal cause to the Multi-verse, compelling it to create universes, do not provide the final answers. If the Multi-verse possesses an infinite number of sequences within either its internal mechanisms or external causes, this would result in an infinite chain of causes, which leaves us with no answers to a definitive start or First Cause. This would lead to another infinite regress fallacy.
The only possibility is that an ultimate First Cause is the first and only initiator of the creation of universes. The only explanation as to why it creates universes is because it initiated such an action itself. The capacity to initiate actions, without prior cause, or automatic internal mechanism, is the proof for the existence of will (i.e. intentionality) in the First Cause. Therefore we can conclude that the First Cause is infinite, and possesses a will, and intends the actions it undertakes.
Abdullah, Masha-Allah, this is ground breaking article. I have never read before this insight that concisely explains how it is not logical possible for a hypothetical multiverse to be infinite.
Is this a new idea or did you read it elsewhere?
I hope this idea becomes mainstream.
I hope you can convey this to people of other faith who are debating with atheists and to the cosmologists.
Thank you for your kind words. But there is nothing new under the sun, only new ways of expressing an old truth. The words are mine, but the thoughts are nothing new, and are as old as Adam (a.s). Apart from the words, the only thing that is mine in the treatise is any mistakes contained within it. Please help me to remove any you may see Inshallah.
Thanks brother for the article. It contained real logical refutations for the “Multi-Universe” Atheism escape vehicle.
However, this ‘logical’ statement mentioned in the article had attracked my attention:
“and if the wood was infinitely large, there could be no place at all for the nail.” … Can you explain what makes it TRUE, Pls?
(I guess if the wood is infinitely large the nail would still find a place, but the chance to locate this nail would yield to zero)
How about replacing only one word, as:
“and if the wood was infinitely large, there could be no ‘TRACE’ at all for the nail.”
I’m really interested to read the remaining parts of treatise.
Salam alaikum brother,
I’m honoured you found it useful.
The Atheist is trapped whatever way they choose to escape. Even if the internal mechanism contains a infinite number of infinite mechanisms (which is impossible), they would still have to answer why each mechanism does the action it does. If they say, because there is another small mechanism inside that component (ad infinitum), it would cause another infinite regress problem. So there is no escape. So my example of the nail and the wood, is not even necessary to refute the atheist – there just is no escape for them!
However, you brought up a good question regarding my example of the wood. What I meant was, if the wood is infinitely large, there could not exist anything else, since the existence of nail along side it would impose a limit to the space occupied by the wood. And if the wood is infinite in the space it occupies, it can have no limit to the space it occupies.
In order for the nail to co-exist with the infinite wood, the nail could not touch the wood (and so proving my point that interaction cannot take place). However, because the wood is of infinite size, there would be no other place for the nail to exist.
A further example would be a balloon in a room. If the balloon was infinite in size, what room could contain it?
Anyways, a thing with boundaries (i.e. one that has a form) cannot be infinite anyway, since boundaries, by their definition, have a finite shape.
Thank you brother for the explanation.
I most probably have taken the ‘wood and nail’ example from a ‘carpenter’ point of view, not a mathematician! lol.
While I agree that neither the multi-verse nor the uni-verse is infinite or random, a finite multi-verse or uni-verse are still interesting arguments—particularly since experiments in quantum physics proposes that an “observer” controls the behavior of all wave/particles—in other words—thought/will exists and it has effects……..and for us Muslims it may perhaps lead to interesting speculations about the nature of Divine will…….?…………..
I am aware of the current level of research in quantum physics, and I would have to say that whatever quantum physics reveals to us, it is a matter for science, not for proving the existence of God, or the existence of His will. Science reveals to us WHAT His will is, and cannot prove its existence (since science is limited only to cataloguing finite reality). The existence of God and the will of God can be detected merely by thought based upon direct observation of the reality, and deducing its only possible ultimate cause.
“whatever quantum physics reveals to us, it is a matter for science, not for proving the existence of God, or the existence of His will. “—I agree……yet, Islamic philosophy has debated the balance between Divine will and human will before—-perhaps science may give us new insights into understanding this complex subject……..or not….its early days yet…..
“…will of God can be detected merely by thought based upon direct observation of the reality”—again, I agree—yet, lack of knowledge can limit our “observation of reality” therefore, when our knowledge expands—we may acquire greater understanding of reality and this can perhaps provide us with more insights into the “will of God”…?….The possibilities are interesting.
Would it be feasible for the publication to be published on amazon a small ebook and made available to be read on the kindle? That would be more convenient for those who aren’t keen on reading through large pdfs on their computer…
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which were finely-tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the multiverses, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence. The entire range of multiverse hypotheses, with specific emphasis on Hugh Everett’s many-worlds interpretation, have been criticised by proponents of intelligent design. William Dembski in particular, derides it as inflating explanatory resources without evidence or warrant, and terms such concepts “inflatons”.
Abudallah, Im really dissapointed to read this. We had a lovely dinner together (well the food wasn’t great but the company was) a while ago discussing the cosmology that leads to the multiverse. This is an area our astrophysics department is very involved with. So you should know full well why it is not somehting that is made with athiesm in mind. But something that is dervied from current mainstream cosmology and also many other approaches in physics. Of course that doesnt make it a fact but it does mean there is a serious debate about it and you will find athiests on both sides of this debate.