Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Fine Tuned Theory of Universe

Rate this topic


Solo_Ta72

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

ASALAM o alaikum

I've went to internet studying about universe as I've always loved astronomy and it has always strengthen my faith in ALLAH (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) 

There's this theory called fine Tuned Theory

I wanted to know is this theory the perfect argument for Gods Existence

Because I've heard some people arguing that this theory might be an illusion while some say the universe is actually fine Tuned including Stephen Hawking

I wanted to know that if anyone has studied About this and if one denies to accept it what else argument can one come up with is as all they claim is coincidences 

JazakAllah khair 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Walaikom assalam

Our Imams (A) including Imam al-Sadeq (عليه السلام) have used this argument to prove the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Imam al-Sadeq (عليه السلام) reportedly says in one of his debates with an atheist:

Quote

Do you not see the sun, moon, night and day cycling and no one is exceeding the other one? They go and they are back. They are forced to be in their location. If they were able to go away, then why would they return? And if they are not forced, then why will not night be day and day will not be night?!! My Egyptian brother! I swear by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that they are forced to be so.

You believe in and think that they move by chance. Then, if they move, why does it (chance) take them back? And if they are back why will they move again? Do not you see the sky elevated and the earth situated? Neither sky falls on the earth nor does the earth fall on what underneath it. I swear by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that their creator and manager keeps them from falling down”

https://www.al-islam.org/life-imam-jafar-al-sadiq-baqir-shareef-al-qurashi/his-reasoning-and-debates

The Imam points out the fact that the sun, moon, and earth are orbiting/spinning perfectly, and they are forced (by gravity) to stay in their orbits. Gravity is one universal law which does not change. Who put this law in place? Allah did.

The Imam (عليه السلام) further elaborates and says that the atheist belief is that the sun and moon move by chance, and gravity was created by chance. However, if chance could "create" gravity, why can't chance destroy it? How can chance even create something in the first place? 

Then the Imam goes on to mention the atmosphere and the solid earth. The earth itself is a miracle. The cycle of its rock is but one example of this. And the atmosphere is also perfect. It has just the right amount of oxygen for us to breathe, but not enough to be flammable. The Imam (عليه السلام) mentions how the atmosphere doesn't fall on the earth. If the atmosphere was a bit thicker or thinner, life on this planet wouldn't be possible. Then he (عليه السلام) says the earth doesn't collapse in on itself because of its gravity. The charge of the earth's atoms repel other atoms so that they cannot get any closer, meaning the earth cannot become any more dense than it already is. 

The Imam then uses reasoning, and he tells the atheist that the only possible explanation for all of these perfect laws is Allah's management. 

Now, I have heard some claim that because the processes of all of these phenomena happened over an extremely long period of time, it didn't need a Creator. It could have happened by chance. But everything was already there for these processes to happened, wasn't it?

The simple answer to this flawed claim is that without a Manager, laws are impossible. Remember when we were in the first years of school, and when the teacher would leave the room, all the students would misbehave? It's like that. If a Manager didn't exist, it would be impossible for all of these perfect laws to exist on their own. 

That's not to mention the fact that these laws had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Before that beginning, there were no laws, and then after the beginning, there were laws. How does this work? The laws created themselves, or did a Creator create them? Obviously there was a Creator and Manager who established the laws of the universe and keeps them in place, through His infinite power and majesty. 

I'm gonna finish off with one of my favourite aayaat.

أَفِي اللَّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ

Is there any doubt about Allah, the originator of the heavens and the earth?! [14:10]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Walaikom assalam

Our Imams (A) including Imam al-Sadeq (عليه السلام) have used this argument to prove the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Imam al-Sadeq (عليه السلام) reportedly says in one of his debates with an atheist:

The Imam points out the fact that the sun, moon, and earth are orbiting/spinning perfectly, and they are forced (by gravity) to stay in their orbits. Gravity is one universal law which does not change. Who put this law in place? Allah did.

The Imam (عليه السلام) further elaborates and says that the atheist belief is that the sun and moon move by chance, and gravity was created by chance. However, if chance could "create" gravity, why can't chance destroy it? How can chance even create something in the first place? 

Then the Imam goes on to mention the atmosphere and the solid earth. The earth itself is a miracle. The cycle of its rock is but one example of this. And the atmosphere is also perfect. It has just the right amount of oxygen for us to breathe, but not enough to be flammable. The Imam (عليه السلام) mentions how the atmosphere doesn't fall on the earth. If the atmosphere was a bit thicker or thinner, life on this planet wouldn't be possible. Then he (عليه السلام) says the earth doesn't collapse in on itself because of its gravity. The charge of the earth's atoms repel other atoms so that they cannot get any closer, meaning the earth cannot become any more dense than it already is. 

The Imam then uses reasoning, and he tells the atheist that the only possible explanation for all of these perfect laws is Allah's management. 

Now, I have heard some claim that because the processes of all of these phenomena happened over an extremely long period of time, it didn't need a Creator. It could have happened by chance. But everything was already there for these processes to happened, wasn't it?

The simple answer to this flawed claim is that without a Manager, laws are impossible. Remember when we were in the first years of school, and when the teacher would leave the room, all the students would misbehave? It's like that. If a Manager didn't exist, it would be impossible for all of these perfect laws to exist on their own. 

That's not to mention the fact that these laws had a beginning. The universe had a beginning. Before that beginning, there were no laws, and then after the beginning, there were laws. How does this work? The laws created themselves, or did a Creator create them? Obviously there was a Creator and Manager who established the laws of the universe and keeps them in place, through His infinite power and majesty. 

I'm gonna finish off with one of my favourite aayaat.

أَفِي اللَّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ

Is there any doubt about Allah, the originator of the heavens and the earth?! [14:10]

JazakAllah

Thank you for your response 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

The physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe - namely, the ratio of electromagnetic force, gravity, mass density, dark energy, and dimensions of space-time - are just right for our universe to exist. In other words, if any of these figures were changed even slightly, planets and stars could never form, much less life. That is not suggestive of a "random" universe, it is suggestive of an intentional one.

The atheist response that I’ve gotten is typically: there may be a multiverse, with a high number of universes; and the other universes may have different physical constants, and the success of this universe may be survivor bias.

The problem is, there is no empirical reason to believe that there is a multiverse at this point, so resorting to that sounds like a cope. Occam’s razor would suggest that we go with the simpler explanation for the time being - that the universe looks fine-tuned because it is fine-tuned. Otherwise, we’d have to assume that there is a cosmic slot machine that pops out universes, and there would need to be an explanation for that machine’s existence.

I recommend reading Stephen Meyer’s “return of the God hypothesis” for more on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Qa'im said:

The physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe - namely, the ratio of electromagnetic force, gravity, mass density, dark energy, and dimensions of space-time - are just right for our universe to exist. In other words, if any of these figures were changed even slightly, planets and stars could never form, much less life. That is not suggestive of a "random" universe, it is suggestive of an intentional one.

The atheist response that I’ve gotten is typically: there may be a multiverse, with a high number of universes; and the other universes may have different physical constants, and the success of this universe may be survivor bias.

The problem is, there is no empirical reason to believe that there is a multiverse at this point, so resorting to that sounds like a cope. Occam’s razor would suggest that we go with the simpler explanation for the time being - that the universe looks fine-tuned because it is fine-tuned. Otherwise, we’d have to assume that there is a cosmic slot machine that pops out universes, and there would need to be an explanation for that machine’s existence.

I recommend reading Stephen Meyer’s “return of the God hypothesis” for more on this.

Yeah, I mean, yes and no.

The anthropic principle (the survivorship bias) is a pretty reasonable response in itself to the teleological (design) argument, at least as it’s traditionally conceived. It’s a sound observation. 

I don’t know if the anthropic principle strictly demands a multiverse necessarily, but yes, I agree the idea of the possibility goes naturally with it. 

I’m of two minds as to which is the most “natural” scientific hypothesis re: single universe vs multiverse. On the one hand there is no real hard evidence that there is a multiverse. Aspects of quantum mechanics maybe make more natural sense in a multiverse, but in terms of positive evidence, no. On the other hand, there’s a certain amount of naïveté perhaps in assuming (even as a working assumption we admit might later change) that the universe we see is basically all there is just because that’s all we see. 

I think we Theists need to spend some time preemptively renovating some of these old arguments like the teleological argument to see if there is a way to make them still be compelling in a hypothetical multiverse scenario. Whether the science is there yet or not, the idea has pretty solidly entered the mainstream (thanks Marvel!). It will be good to have answers to this scenario. 

I’m actually working on an interesting blog piece I hope to finish during the holidays exploring the consequences of a Many Worlds Interpretation of QM multiverse toward the soul and the afterlife (as well as toward notions of divine scripture and law). It’s a cool speculative topic. 

 

 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
54 minutes ago, kadhim said:

I think we Theists need to spend some time preemptively renovating some of these old arguments like the teleological argument to see if there is a way to make them still be compelling in a hypothetical multiverse scenario.

It's already been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/23/2022 at 10:46 PM, Solo_Ta72 said:

wanted to know is this theory the perfect argument for Gods Existence

Salam!!

The perfect argument for God's existence resides within you.

A sincere seeker always finds God, and that is also mentioned in a hadith e qudsi:

من طلبني فقد وجدني

(He who seeks me has found me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
3 hours ago, kadhim said:

Yeah, I mean, yes and no.

The anthropic principle (the survivorship bias) is a pretty reasonable response in itself to the teleological (design) argument, at least as it’s traditionally conceived. It’s a sound observation. 

I don’t know if the anthropic principle strictly demands a multiverse necessarily, but yes, I agree the idea of the possibility goes naturally with it. 

I’m of two minds as to which is the most “natural” scientific hypothesis re: single universe vs multiverse. On the one hand there is no real hard evidence that there is a multiverse. Aspects of quantum mechanics maybe make more natural sense in a multiverse, but in terms of positive evidence, no. On the other hand, there’s a certain amount of naïveté perhaps in assuming (even as a working assumption we admit might later change) that the universe we see is basically all there is just because that’s all we see. 

I think we Theists need to spend some time preemptively renovating some of these old arguments like the teleological argument to see if there is a way to make them still be compelling in a hypothetical multiverse scenario. Whether the science is there yet or not, the idea has pretty solidly entered the mainstream (thanks Marvel!). It will be good to have answers to this scenario. 

I’m actually working on an interesting blog piece I hope to finish during the holidays exploring the consequences of a Many Worlds Interpretation of QM multiverse toward the soul and the afterlife (as well as toward notions of divine scripture and law). It’s a cool speculative topic.

I think the anthropic principle (weak and strong) and multiverse hypothesis are a response, but not the "inference to the best explanation" with the available data. Meyer also raises some philosophical problems with these - I'd love for you to read those sections of his book and give your take on his arguments.

In my opinion: for many folks, a naturalist worldview simply precludes the idea of a designer or god. This mindset is much more satisfied with throwing logic in the bin before arriving at such a conclusion. But increasingly today, scientists and thinkers are talking about simulation hypothesis and panspermia via aliens, which are essentially design arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Qa'im said:

The atheist response that I’ve gotten is typically: there may be a multiverse, with a high number of universes; and the other universes may have different physical constants, and the success of this universe may be survivor bias.

The problem is, there is no empirical reason to believe that there is a multiverse at this point, so resorting to that sounds like a cope.

Yk Sayed Mahdi Modarresi in one of his lectures says that Richard Dawkins used this argument as well. The Sayed said that when Dawkins was asked if there's any evidence for this, he said no, but he has faith that one day the evidence would come out. Mashallah. The Christians are so dumb for having 'blind faith', yet you yourself have blind faith in this stupid theory. Logik.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@Solo_Ta72

:salam:

You have to take a number of arguments in conjunction, not one single argument. The fine-tuning is a teleological argument. There a a number of teleological arguments which share similar principles. They indicate the existence of a designer but they don't prove all the other attributes of Allah. For that you need to involve other arguments.

You must be ready to study the subject for a significant amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
38 minutes ago, -Rejector- said:

Yk Sayed Mahdi Modarresi in one of his lectures says that Richard Dawkins used this argument as well. The Sayed said that when Dawkins was asked if there's any evidence for this, he said no, but he has faith that one day the evidence would come out. Mashallah. The Christians are so dumb for having 'blind faith', yet you yourself have blind faith in this stupid theory. Logik.

I kind of imagine this was just a bit of dry British cheekiness on Richard’s part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
1 hour ago, -Rejector- said:

Yk Sayed Mahdi Modarresi in one of his lectures says that Richard Dawkins used this argument as well. The Sayed said that when Dawkins was asked if there's any evidence for this, he said no, but he has faith that one day the evidence would come out.

 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

I kind of imagine this was just a bit of dry British cheekiness on Richard’s part. 

I think you are referring to this interview:

 

Ben Stein is a nincompoop of course, but I'm sure Dawkins regretted this interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

The Sayed said that when Dawkins was asked if there's any evidence for this, he said no, but he has faith that one day the evidence would come out. Mashallah.

Dawkins holds the same position as many atheists on this issue. They have faith that the answers will be purely scientific (i.e. naturalistic/physical in nature). This is because according to them all other things so far have been explained with natural phenomena. So for them their "faith" is superior to the faith/conclusion of the theists because it has a proven track record. I.e. science has always managed to close the gaps.

What theists do is show that there are things which cannot be explained by science and in specific a non-natural/physical explanation is needed for the ultimate origin of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Wa alaykum salam

@Solo_Ta72 people have been making some very good points. I'd like to add a couple. 

I like the fine tuned theory and have seen multiverses posited by atheists and the like.

What if someone removes the multiverse and looks at this universe? Ok, life couldn't exist if the laws of the universe weren't as they are.. But within this observable universe there are all these planets, solar systems, galaxies etc we have observed without life. One could say that life doesn't seem like the purpose of the universe if it's on only one planet out of who knows how many trillions and trillions of planets within this universe. 

I look at design and fine tuning as the predictability of observable phenomena due to the consistency of natural laws suggests intelligent design. Why isn't there chaos or randomness in what we can observe? 

Note that we know natural laws exist and cause the things we observe scientifically but no one can observe the natural laws themselves. Where are they? Are they physical or abstract? 

I do think the fine tuning theory holds by the way, but as people have said we need to look at various arguments together. In my opinion cosmological arguments are the strongest which Islamic philosophers and theologians have formulated in the best way. 

Theological Instructions by Ayatullah Misbah Yazdi is a good introductory source for it. 

The fitrah, innate nature and within our own soul arguments also hold very true. 

Again we need other arguments for the attributes of God. No religion or school of thought has described God as clearly, rationally and consistently as Islam. 

Jazakallah

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...