Is the Universe Eternal? [and Why I believe 'God did it' ]

Is this Universe Really Eternal?


No, it's not.

I will address 3 main points in this article to support the Theist [believing in God] stance inshaa' Allah.

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

The 2nd point will be Philosophical as to why the Multi/Universe is not eternal.

The 3rd point will discuss why I believe God is the Designer of this Universe.

Introduction: The Big Bang.

Edwin Hubble studied the universe through his innovative famous Hubble Telescope, and discovered that the stars in our universe were gradually distancing from each other, concluding that the universe was continuously expanding. But if the universe was continuouslly expanding as time progressed, how was the universe like in the past? How was the universe like in the beginning? He concluded that if the universe is expanding into the future, if reversed - it would have become smaller and smaller, until it started from a single point - a Singularity. This Singularity is a point with enormous mass all condensed, to fit that single point. In the future - this single point would expand continuously to form an expanding universe - like the one we live in right now. It would be within this Universe that everything takes place.

(NOTE: Whether you agree or disagree with the Big Bang is a separate issue, but this is when you are addressing the atheists.)


This is as far as science takes us. Anything that could happen 'before' this Singularity is not proven in Science. Since this Singularity was the origin of our universe according to the theory of the Big Bang.



What Caused the Big Bang?

When Theists heard of the Big Bang, they joyed in the fact that this Universe had a Origin point - refuting the Atheists & Philosophers of old who said the Universe was static/existant forever without the need of God. Atheists on the other hand denied that God did it, and they replied - this Universe is part of a series of other Universes [A Multiverse] - maybe forming as a side reaction to them other Universes. But both groups can't actually prove their statements, since this is out of the boundaries of scientific discovery.


A point to consider however is that: The argument of the atheist is not really a powerful one - since the question just shifts to - How did the Multiverse originate (instead of, how did the Universe originate)?

If the atheist was to reply back with the classical; Who created God, the reply could be that: God is not created, He is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering Entropy (as will be explained below). A God which is timeless on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic.




1) The Scientific Explanation: The Rule of Entropy.



Imagine a glass of Ice, placed in a hot room. The ice will gradually melt, and become water, and finally the water will heat up to the temperature of the room. This water cannot return back to ice form in such an environment.


Now imagine this Universe/Multiverse - it has alot of Energy Stored within it [potential/stored energy]. This energy causes the movements [kinetic energy] of the planets/stars etc. But Energy continuously changes state - this Movement Energy converts into Heat Energy as a side reaction. This Heat Energy does not cause much benefit since it cannot change into a useful state of Energy.



Energy of the Universe:

Potential/Stored Energy --> Movement Energy (of the Planets/stars etc.) --> Heat Energy (unuseful Energy.)

Energy is Limited (due to Universe being in Closed system) --- Planet/star movement Produces Heat --- When Heat at Maximum, Maximum Entropy reached. Universe Stops moving.

Key: --> (Produces.)

As the Stored/Potential Energy is used, Movement is Produced - so Heat is produced.

When the Stored Energy is totally used up, the Movement of the Universe stops, and the Heat Energy has reached its maximum. This Heat Energy is irreversible and cannot cause Movement again, just like the water cannot return back to ice in that environment. Just like a battery has used up all its energy. This is in effect called Maximum Entropy (Maximum Heat Reached).

So the Universe/Multiverse has a limited amount of Energy - due to the theory of the Multiverse seeing the Multiverse with the same Universal laws as the Universe we live in. Since this Universe has a closed system, the Multiverse also has a closed system. And a closed system is like a sugar tablet, it will only contain a limited amount of Energy, which when used up - ceases to provide energy for anything.



So we see that according to the Rule of Entropy, we should reflect on the following points;

1] If the Multiverse was Eternal/Infinite/Forever years old, it would run out of Useful Energy along time ago (since Maximum Entropy would already be reached then.).

2] (Based on 1) No Useful Energy an infinite time ago - would make it Impossible for this Universe to come into existence (since this Universe would require Energy to form & expand.)

3] HOWEVER, this universe did come into existence.

2] There will be a time when this Universe, or even Multiverse will come to an End in the future.

1] When this Multiverse comes to an End (due to Maximum Entropy being reached) - It stops functioning. - Where does this universe/multiverse get its new Useful Energy from? It would need Energy from an outside source. Meaning that there has to be a 'first Original cause' for everything all over again.

2) The Philosophical Argument: Infinite people Ahead of You, Will you ever get your turn?


A Universe/s Regressing back Infinitely is illogical. How?


Imagine you're standing in a line, with infinite amount of people standing ahead of you.

Will you ever get your turn?


The same way this universe would never get its chance to come into existence, if infinite universes were before it.


The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So instead we affirm that God is One, the Originator, without being created. And this does not defy logic, since God by definition is infinite.




3) Why do I believe God did it?


Theists argue that its miraculous that this Universe contains life [i.e. on Earth].

Atheists will reply that it's lucky that this Universe does contain life, but this is a product of coincidence, since the many Universes before may not have contained life, until this one was able to be in a way to support it (Also known as the Anthropic Principle.)


So how can you take such a point to your advantage?

Reply: Scientifically, we're only aware of this one Universe. There is no scientific proof of other Universes/Multiverse. So the fact that we are sure of this Universe, and the fact that its probable that only this Universe has ever been existant - then this Universe being suitable for life is a miraculous feat. Furthermore, its even more miraculous that this Universe is not only suitable for life, but actually sustains life too, and has done so for many thousands of years. This seems miraculous to me, especially when this is the only Universe that we're scientifically aware of.


The Atheist will probably reply; "you find the world/universe miraculous to observe, but if it didn't sustain us, we [the human race] wouldn't be able to observe it." [i.e. we wouldn't even be able to observe the universe if it wasn't suitable to sustain us.]

Your Counter-Reply would be; That is what you could call the "contra-anthropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculous than it already is!

I think i'm losin it...

I think i'm losin it...


i wasn't happy..

the hour drew near every sec,

n i felt in a state of fear..

was i doin the right thing, was i in check?

i've lost so many battles.. but the war goes on.

i dno.. but i gota stay strong.

this life, its just a delusion.

but i still, for some reason.. run around in confusion.

i say i want less, but i desire more..

is that cuz i'm overburdin myself, or is it cuz i'm unsure?



its because i'm losing it again.. i'm losin that spark.

its like.. once again, i'm wanderin in the dark.

i need the light, i need to be free.

but constantly, i'm in a state of anxiety.

its' because i'm losin it again.. but what if its cuz i've stopped?

i dno.. its like it just dropped.



i'm praying to Allaah, once again, that i become strong.

i think i lost it.. cuz i did so many wrongs.

i overburdened myself, and i never worked hard to strengthen my self again.

thats cuz emaan dies, if u dnt re-affirm it.

don't you know, that Allaah says "oh ye who believe, BELIEVE in Allaah and His Messenger*"?

That's because.. He knows that faith dies..

you gota re-strengthen it, open your eyes.


Don't make islaam a habit.. work hard.

The same way you did, right from the start.


That's just a reminder, if you once forgot.

cuz i did too, then i got lost.

pray to the One, who gave it you first.

And stay sincere, cuz you know it's worth.



--

* Qur'an al-Nisa 4.136

My Love Story...

Asalaam alaikum warahmatulah wabarakatuh.


My Love Story...

She came into my life, when i needed her the most
when i had lost it all, the trust, the care, emotion.

she taught me that i could trust people again
that i could love and respect once more.

making me think different to how others would percieve.
when i felt weak, she'd empower me.


Her presence was pleasing and brought peace to my heart
the scenes of the world were colourful now, pure art.

She encouraged me to ask Allah, and He would give..
So by His Mercy i'd learn patience, and to forgive.

We'd work together and be strong.
Even though our journey was tiresome, and long..



..but time moved forward, and situations changed. The world distracted. The love didn't increase, just conflicted.

"i'm sorry" i'd say regretfully. "repent to Allah" she would reply.


but the love wouldn't rise again. Sins would rise. Our relationship began to change...
My heart was greedy, and it wanted more.


the gaze wouldnt lower when passers flaunted
the heart said no, but the desires taunted.

the heart covered itself in dirt of black.


soon.. she left, and didn't come back...


the regret hurt, and loneliness messed my head.
Couldn't go sleep, couldn't rest.

i covered the pain with sin
might remove this pain i'm in?


the pain persisted and the desire more
so i increased in rebellion,
but this feeling wouldnt go..

..i had lost myself..
my regret overpowered

i went in search


she was with her protector, waiting to be found.
Just waiting for me to come around.
She missed me too
but i couldnt be with her, until i gave her her due.

what is your due, i humbly asked?


“To pray, to obey, and be steadfast

thats the only way - our relationship lasts.

To be the friend of Allah, and think of death often.
To humble yourself, and do good action

to prepare for that moment, when we all run away
except the one who prepared for that Day

so fear Allah and be committed
to our relationship, so you're admitted,

in the gardens of joy

don't be the people of hell
the home of destruction, a fire filled cell.

mend your ways now, its the right thing to do,
deep down, you know i care for you..“

i listened attentively, understanding.. I was wrong in desiring more.


When she was enough for me, when she made me joy.
That smile of that kid, who finds his toy.

The simplicity, the balance, the pact we kept.

Thats what we wanted - without regret.



i asked her Protector, who gave her me back.
This experience had put me on track.

except this time i was sure
i didnt need to exceed desires for more.

the experience gave me fresh strength

The true Joy was in being content.

...




..We're now together - together till death,
a promise we've - upto now - kept.

i hope it remains this way.
oh Allah, don't let us stray.
from your Mercy and pleasure.
since that's the only way, we'll stay together.


now you know, this was my love story..
except, it wasn't what you expected it to be.

this girl, her name was Imaan*.
except she wasn't a girl, she's my faith - that kept me strong.

Imaan is my joy, my love, and pleasure..
the one i've tried to find - through many - in haraam,
except this caused the least harm,
..the one I still treasure.


---
*Meaning Faith/trust [I.e. Iman billah (a trust/contract with Allah/God)



I ask Allah to make us love Imaan, to travel with her - always, to cause us to die with her, and to arise on Judgment Day with her by our side.

How did Allah make the Universe? [An easy reply to Atheists.]

Asalam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabakaraktuh.

How did Allah make the Universe?

[An easy reply to Atheists.]


Many Atheists (disbelievers in God) ask Theists (believers in God) that if God created the Universe, how did He actually make it? What are the exact details?

The dilemma: The Theists then become confused as to how they should reply, they don't want to say something about God without knowledge, nor do they want to disagree that God does not contradict science.


So what's the Answer?



The Answer in 3 basic steps:

1 -"Be! and it Is." Allah/God creates through different methods, one method is of Him saying Kun [Be!] fa ya Koon [and it is]. [see Surah Yasin 36:81-2. Or al Baqara 2: 16-17]

So when He made the Universe, He could have used this method for its creation.


2 - Allah created and upholds the laws of Physics - through which He forms the Universe and keeps it functioning as we see. So according to our beliefs, these laws are nothing more then the habitual acts of God.


3 - Allah can change the laws whenever He wants. - If the laws of physics are merely the habitual acts of God, then obviously it isn't a problem for God to act out of His habitual ways. Or in other words, it's not a problem for God to act outside these laws.

He can change the present laws of the Universe for an intended purpose.

[I.e. He may change the physics of the Universe for an intended purpose i.e. Preparation for Judgment Day etc.]

By using the above Arguments, you have answered the Original Question Without giving up your religious beliefs, Without contradicting science, and Without long dispute.

This is also useful because we are encouraged - by Allah - to study Science and find out about the Universe, so even if new scientific discoveries were made and older theories discarded, these 3 principles will remain the same.


Allahu a'lam.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/allah-universe-easy-reply-atheists-3024

The Punishment of Banu Qurayza

asalaam alaikum



The Jews commited treason against the Muslims in Medinah in the Battle of Ahzab (Confederates) [also known as Khandaq (Trench battle)], [the Jews planned on fighting the Muslims behind their back] - when the Muslims found out, they killed their men and enslaved their women and children.


According to the Old Testament [which the Jews believe is the unaltered revelation from God];

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (Today's New International Version)

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13

When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

So if this is the command God gives to the Jews in the Old Testament, then why are they saying that the Muslims are immorale, when it's part of their [Jewish] own law to do this!?


Examples of Moses doing this in battle are mentioned in the Old Testament;

Numbers 31:7-18 (Today's New International Version)

⁷ They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. ⁸ Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. ⁹ The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. ¹⁰ They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.

¹⁵ "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he [Moses] asked them. ¹⁶ "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. ¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Further Reading;

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/anti-islamic-refutations/execution-jews-bani-quraydah-663

Refutation to the claim that Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (the Prophets companion) prostrated at his grave.

The sects who are trying to follow the ways of the Christians (sufis, shi'a etc) try to use the following hadith as proof that prostrating to graves was 'done by the companions of Prophet Muhammad';

عن داود بن أبي صالح ، قال: أقبل مروان يوماً فوجد رجلاً واضعاً وجهه على القبر فأخذ برقبته، وقال: أتدري ما تصنع؟ قال: نعم، فأقبل عليه فإذا هو أبو أيوب الأنصاري رضي الله عنه فقال: جئت رسول الله ولم آتِ الحجر، سمعت رسول الله يقول: «لا تَبْكوا علَى الدّينِ إِذا وَلِيَهُ أَهْلُهُ وَلكِنِ ابْكوا عَلَيْهِ إِذا وَلِيَهُ غَيْرُ أَهْلِهِ».

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد


Translation: Dawud ibn Salih said: "[The governor of Madina] Marwan one day saw a man placing his face on top of the grave of the Prophet. He said: "Do you know what you are doing?" When he came near him, he realized it was Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. The latter said: "Yes; I came to the Prophet, not to a stone."

[Musnad Ahmed Bin Hanbal 5:466, Imam Hakim in his Al-Mustadrak 4:520, Hadith # 8571, Where he declared it “SAHIH” and Imam Dahahbi also agreed with him (i.e. It is Sahih)]

Response given by Ayman bin khaled:

a. al-Hakim (رحمه الله) did not say this Hadeeth is Saheeh!. Rather he said its chain is Sahih and there is a big difference between each statement as known in science of hadeeth. The former means the narration is authentic whereas the latter does not necessirely mean the narrtion is authentic.

b. al-Dhahabi never agreed with al-Hakim on such statement. How would he agree on such classification when he himself stated that Dawd bin Saleh, who exists in the chain, is unknown narrator [refer to al-Mizaan of al-Dhahabi: 3/14 and Tahdheeb al-Tahdheen of al-Hafith: 3/188].

c. The chain also includes Katheer bin Zaid who is disputed over i.e. Abu Zar'a said he is Sadooq with some leen while al-Nasaie said he is weak.

d. Dawd bin Saleh narrates this story from a man called Marwaan and he is also unknown

Based on this, the chain is obviously weak and no scholar would ever say its chain is Sahih unless he relies on the work of al-hakim, which is incorrect in this one, without anticipating it.

With regards the Matn of the narrtion, then it is obvious that it has some obvious oddness that prove its incorrectness, as can be noted. The narration indicate that the grave is in public and seen by whoever pass by while, as a matter of fact, we all know that the grave of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is actually located in the room of Aisha (رضي الله عنها). In addition, it is known that the Salaf including Imam Malik who was an observer to acts of people of Madina and Imam Ahmad who was in the region of Hijaaz or the Shafie who was in Mecca disliked and disapproved touching the grave and said that people of knowledge never done it, which proves that such narrtion is too weak and no one ever acted upon.

In summery, The chain is very weak and so is its text also. So, no one should quote such narrations or dig through narrations that never been acted upon by scholars. Thus whatever you concluded based on such narration is rejected and cannot be accepted or even considered.

I would have commented on the odd point of what makes a Sojood as you have mentioned, if I had time. However, please note that such topics should not be presented by laypeople and it would have better for you to abstain from being involved in such topics as you do not have enough knowledge and obviously you just copy and paste articles or others views, which makes you a Muqallid, therefore it does not make sense to defend what you have did Taqleed with unless you want to verify what you are upon.

In the end, I would like to remind you that whatever I said here is not addressing you as aperson, as I do not even know you, but all my words are addressing and assesting your assertion based on the principles of this religion. That said, I do agree with what you said that Sojood has two types and ruling differ on each one (one is haram if done with the intent of respect, and the other is shirk if done with the intent of worship.)

http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=47312&postcount=8

REFERENCE: An Index of Commonly used Anti-Islamic Words (or Subjects), & Links to 'Best' Responses*.

REFERENCE: An Index of Commonly used Anti-Islamic Words (or Subjects), & Links to 'Best' Responses*.
*These responses usually consist of Quranic verses and Ahadith [Prophetic sayings] which refute the doubt directly.


(In Alphabetical Order):

If you're unable to find the word mentioned [in the linked post] -
press CTRL and F, and type the word (click Find Next), and it should show on the page inshaAllah.


#
4:15 Al Nisa. 1 2 (Abrogated: ..confine them to their houses until death...)


A
'Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh
Abiogenesis 1 2 3
Adam & Eve
Agnosticism 1 2 3
Aisha 1 2 3
Allah 1 2

Amino Acids 1 2
Ammonia 1 2
Animals 1 2
Anthropic Principle 1 2 3
Anti-Semitism 1
Alcohol 1 2 [Research]
Appendix
Apostasy 1 2 3
ATHEISM
Atmosphere 1 2


B
Banu Quraydah 1
Beating 1 2
Big Bang 1 2
Bible 1 2 3
Big Chill / Big Crunch / Big Rip [hypotheses for ending of this universe]
Branes theory
Brain 1 2


C
Cell 1 2.
Colour of skin 1
- Closed Cell 1
Common Ancestor / Common Descent 1 2
Cut hand of thief 1 2 3


D
Daraba (strike) [Al Nisa 4:34] 1
Deeds
Destiny 1 2
DNA 1 2 3


E
Energy 1 2
Entropy 1
Evolution
Expanding Universe / La Moowsi'oon [in arabic terminology]
Evil 1 2
Evolutionary Model of Religion 1 2
Ezra/Uzair 1 2

F
Faith 1 2
Falsifiable 1 2 3
Fine tuning 1 2 3
Fitrah (natural disposition to believe in God) 1
Flaws 1 2
Flogging (whipping) 1 2
Forced Marriages 1 2



G
Gender Relations
- Intermixing 1 2 [Research - Girls do Better in Education without Boys] 3

God create Stone/Rock so Heavy, which He cannot Lift? 1
who created God? 1
God of the Gaps
God create Stone/Rock so Heavy, which He cannot Lift? 1
-who created God? 1
God of the Gaps
Gravity 1 2


H
Hadeeth 1 2 3
Hijab 1 2 [Research - Sexualised women Viewed as Less humans by Males than Covered women..] 3
Homosexuality 1 2
Hudood Punishments 1 2

I
Intoxicants 1
Inbreeding
Incest 1
Intelligent Design 1 2
Isomers 1


J


Jihad 1
Jizyah 1 2
Jews
- Banu Quraydah 1


K
Khidhr 1 2


L
Lightning
Lipid Bilayers 1 2


M
Mind
Miracles 1 2
Millers Study 1 2
Murky water (sunset) 1 2
Moon god 1 2
Moon split 1 2
Monkeys
Mountains 1 2 3
mRNA 1 2 3
Multiverse 1 2
Mutations



N
Nervous System 1 2
Nucleotides 1 2 3


O
Ockhams Razor 1
Organelles 1
Oxidization 1 2
O-Zone layer 1 2

P
Pairs 1
Pegs 1 2
Pigs
Poison (did the Prophet die from it?) 1
prebiotic Soup
Problem of Evil 1 2
Proteins 1
Psychology 1 2


Q
Qisas [Retaliation] 1 2
Quantum


R
Randomness
Rape 1 2 3
Raping Slave Girls? 1
Religion 1 2
RNA 1 2 3
- RNA World Theory 1 2 3
- mRNA 1 2 3
Robbery 1 2 3


S
Selfish 1 2
Skin Colour 1
Slavery 1 2
Smack child 1 2 (..if he doesn't pray at 10.)
Soup (prebiotic)
Sunnah 1 2 3
String theory



T
Tail Bone
Terrorism 1 2
Thief 1 2 3
Transcription / Translation [of DNA] 1 2 3


U
Uzayr/Ezra 1
UV / Ultra Violet Rays 1


V
Vitamin C

W
Wife beating 1
Wisdom Teeth


X


Y


Z



Key:
1 - Best Refutation
2 - Usually a Refutation & Information, (either or both)
3 - Information.
4, 5, 6... etc. - Further Information.

- Titles in CAPITAL LETTERS link to another category of Refutations i.e. ATHEISM.



Keep checking here for updates;
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/reference-index-commonly-atheist-words-links-responses-2535

An Eternal Universe? Nah,not According to Modern Science.

Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

An Eternal Universe? Nah,not According to Modern Science.



Atheist Question #1;

This universe does astound our small minds, petty by-products of chance life; but is there any part of that we can actually say "that is so amazing only a creator could have caused it?"



Muslim Answer #1:

Yes most definitly, some examples:

1) rate of expansion after big bang

“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).

2) gravity :

“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).

Atheist Question #2 - Multiverse Theory:

Theatheist may claimthat; A MultiVerse was existant 'forever' and had no beginning. So imagine a bunch of lots of universes together = a Multiverse.

And within that Multiverse, many 'other universes' were expanding (like the Big Bang), so they collided into each other - causing a side Big Bang of energy - which would cause this universe to come into existence, and start expanding.


So atheists are saying that the universe wasn't really created, instead, it began from a group of other Universes colliding together, providing energy for a new Big Bang = this universe.

*This is in relation to the modern Branes or String theory.



Muslim Answer #2:

the multiverse argument just shifts the question as to how it [the multiverse] all originated in the first place;

Whether or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. The multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note that there's a diffrence between believing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite God. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entropy as an infinite universe (i.e. the amount of useful energy of eternal big bangs, - expansion after contraction - continuously, would be reduced to 0, so needing a starting point once again at some time). That is because the multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces.

What is being said is;

1) The Multiverse idea just shifts the question to;How did the Multiverse begin, instead of the question; how did the universe begin?


2) If the atheist says the multiverse was 'forever without a beginning', then a rule called Entropy* argues against an 'eternal/forever' multiverse.

What is Entropy: *Even if "open and close" [expansion/contraction] universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be get energy from "nothing".

Eternal Big Bangs couldn't occur eternally because they would soon run out of useful energy (because after 'each' big bang there is less useful energy remaining) - finally having no useful energy to cause big bangs - meaning that there has to be a 'first cause' for it all over again.

So atheists cant say the universe has had eternal big bangs and contractions without a first cause. We say the causer of all things is Allah who depends on no-one and is the Powerful. [al Qawiy]


In Detail:

Slide 13: Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every \"opening\" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com

source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare

Atheist Argument #3 against Entropy;

But Energy never gets destroyed, energy just changes state like Einstein said.


Muslim Answer #3;

Yes, that might be the case. However, we are talking about 'Useful Energy' which allows future Big Bangs to occur. After a certain amount of Big Bangs, the amount of Useful Energy will be decreased everytime, and the only energy that will remain is Heat (the energy used for the Big Bangs had changed into heat, and heat is not useful in creating future Big Bangs for other newer universes [since Kinetic and Potential Energy is needed for that].) This heat cannot do anything since it is irreversible energy (so it can't be useful energy for future Big Bangs.)


So in effect, the universe cannot be eternal/forever. If it was forever, maximum Entropy would have already been reached an eternity ago, so there wouldn't be any useful energy to allow this present universe to come into existence!

The only other solution would be for a new Provider of Useful Energy to start the whole process once again. And once these Big Bang's ran out of useful energy [Maximum Entropy reached], a Provider of New useful Energy would be needed once again repeatedly each time.


The atheist might say that some energy which may seem 'irreversible' can be changed into useful energy through manipulation. But to change its state into useful energy through manipulation would require further energy for its transformation, and there is a lack of this energy already. So this wouldn't be possible.


So a multiverse cannot survive on its own forever, rather it needs a Provider of Useful Energy each time it runs out, based on the scientific rule of Entropy.

Atheist Question #4:

Atheist; How can you apply the rules of our universe, to the laws of other universes and the Multiverse? The physics of our universe might be different to the multiverse?


Muslim Answer #4:

The multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces as ours. [So the rules are the same for the universe and multiverse according to the Multiverse theory.]

If the atheist disagrees, he needs to explain what the alternative physical laws are of the other universe/multiverse, and he can't do this because science has not proven or explained what their physical laws are [infact it hasn't even discovered those other universes, since the whole multiverse theory is a hypothesis (educated guess)].

So the argument still stands, our current state of the universe denies the possibility of time dating back infinitly. So similarly, the idea of an infinite multiverse going an eternity back in time is also denied, according to modern day scientific standards.

Atheist Question #5:

Atheist; "the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it."

So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-antropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.




Atheist; "He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of." (hence he's more complicated than the idea of an eternal universe).


answer:
I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it accounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.

I realize that if I claim "God is the solution to the question of existence", then you could reply: but who created God? My reply in term would be, God is not created, he is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering entropy. A god which is time-less on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic. Therefore to some extent I find it persuasive.


[Meaning: since Intelligent Design 'idea' is the most plausible explanation (to me) based on my understanding of science and probabilities of nature doing all these acts in a synchronised way), then the multiverse hypothesis 'idea' is even more complex in comparison since it defies logic and relies on ALOT of coincidences.]




http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/eternal-universe-nah-modern-science-2587