On the so called Cosmological version of the Anthropic principle.

On the so called Cosmological version of the Anthropic principle.

Naturally, the author realizes that his problem does not end there, at the initial “reaction” that supposedly got the engine of life started by pure chance; it goes back to the origin of Earth itself and the rest of the universe, because clearly, the entire universe – not just natural life and ecological conditions on Earth – has to be no other way but the way that it is, for the sake of life to flourish and for man to live the way he does! So he finds he has no choice but to take the corrupt reasoning that we refuted in the previous section, to another level!

The anthropic principle and the facts that we do observe that clearly demonstrate how the Universe is perfectly suited for our favor, should – at least – hint the mind of an honest seeker of the truth towards questioning the rationale upon which “Scientific” theories of cosmic and biological origins are founded, and the fallacy of the way that the origins of both man and Earth are easily taken by those scientists to be analogous to certain events that we see take place within the Universe and on Earth as parts of the already created system as it is! He should at least realize that there is much more to those initial events of origins than anything he has ever seen or could possibly imagine! But for a scientist to take the anthropic principle itself and force it to serve this obviously corrupt reasoning of his, and to come up with the conclusion that it is – the principle itself in its very meaning – falsely interpreted into perfectness and purposefulness of creation; this is by all means an outrage!

It is supposed to be quite enough for any sane man to think properly and make good sense of things, to listen to this statement:

―Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible.‖ (The delusion p.141)

And though he admits it, he insists on driving it all in reverse!

Take this quotation for example:

403

―The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants of the universe so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. It is as though God had six knobs that he could twiddle, and he carefully tuned each knob to its Goldilocks value. As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed - which is indeed the premise of the whole discussion we are having.‖ (The delusion p.143)

Twiddling with knobs? You really think that our prospect of the way the almighty creator established the universe, is in the image of a human twiddling with knobs? What blame should we take if all that those people have ever learnt about the creator had come to them mostly through fairy tales, pagan mythology and TV cartoons?

Then again he falls back to the very same objection which he admits to be “the premise of the whole discussion”! And as though it is enough for a claim to be established as a fact, only through mere repetition, ambitious appraisal, and confident gestures, he makes – again - the conclusion:

―It follows that the theist's answer has utterly failed to make any headway towards solving the problem at hand.‖

Utterly failed?

Oh yes indeed! Whatever you say professor!

Quote:

―Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability.‖

Here is a man who speaks to you, my kind reader, from the other side of rationality! A man who has happily had his consciousness “raised” and

404

believes he knows the psychological explanation for the „blindness‟ of all those humans who have not yet had Darwin raise their consciousness! Oh humans how blind you are! Go ahead and seek salvation in Darwin! How could you go to bed every day without seeking the rational refuge of Darwinism that biologists have found? How could you possibly think and reason your way through in your daily affairs without reforming your consciousness with Darwinism? How could you even believe your own senses when you are still so blind as to view the mastery of the making of the universe as proof for creation? I pity you with all my heart!

I feel I need to ask of my reader to have patience and longevity as he proceeds with reading this literature, because I really cannot afford to make it any thinner! The gap between the grounds of true wisdom and meaningful knowledge on one hand, and this “circus” that dominates scientific academia in the west today on the other, is so vast that it really deserves no less than a book of over a thousand pages to explain it in fair detail! My aim here is not just the refutation of Dawkins‟ arguments, as I have mentioned repeatedly! I may find myself tempted to repeat certain arguments in different wording for the sake of the context and to better explain it, so please do not be bothered by such repetition! You will see that it helps.

I pray to the Lord Allah – praised be His name - that every honest seeker of the truth who reads these words right now – from whatever discipline or doctrine or background he may be - would not put down this book without having his life and his view of the world and of himself seriously shifted back towards wisdom and truth!

Amen.

The professor proceeds to mention the Darwinian explanation that is given by an evolutionary psychologist for the reason why people tend – according to his claim – to “personify” everything around them! He speaks of the reason why we tend to ascribe „human‟ attributes to anything that moves before us, and claims that it is because the risk of not doing so is higher – in evolutionary terms – than otherwise! This is obviously a corrupt understanding of the way even animals view moving things around them!

405

Every member of a mobile living species that has perception of some form, knows how to make a clear distinction between its prey, its predator, its mate, other fellow members of the tribe and living beings from other species! They never mistake a wind driven leaf – for example – for a predator!

Moreover, we humans do have the capacity to recognize purpose and meaning, and we have the capacity to identify a deed for what it is, an event that by necessity demands a willful doer! This is not some childish tendency or evolutionary leftover; it is a linguistic necessity! We humans identify willful agency in causation just like we naturally identify reaction as an event that demands an action, and effect as an event that demands a cause! It is a property as fundamental and definitive to human reasoning as every other property of the way we think!

So to easily render this human capacity of identifying purpose and identifying every event in nature for what it is (the deed of a willful doer); as the mere remainder of some sort of ancient evolutionary necessity in man is to approach different features of human consciousness and reason in an unjustifiable way that stands on no grounds but plain Darwinian bias! Humans are perfectly justified in thinking this way! They have always seen it to be quite logical and intuitive! Every event we observe is the outcome of a cause. This cause is part of a chain of causes that ends inexorably at the first cause, the willful and purposeful creator and sustainer of it all. Yes at some points on the chain of causes we may observe other willful causes (like humans or beasts), but the fact still remains that all causes lead to the first essential cause, who must have had the will and intent to set it all up, and to put everything in place. Only atheists seek to deny and refute the first cause with all its necessary faculties! It‟s their choice of faith!

And though some philosophers have chosen to label this natural property of attributing meanings that are common in humans to the creator and to other forms of causal agency in nature as „anthropomorphism‟, it is not really a (morphism) at all! It is quite reasonable that we humans would assign properties to inanimate things that share a common meaning with certain human attributes! We do that all the time! So if this is what you call

406

anthropomorphism then all humans are anthropomorphists by nature! Every time we say (for example): “The computer is running the program”, we use a meaning that is commonly attributed to humans to describe something that the computer is doing, yet we know that such linguistic use doesn‟t – in the least - imply that the machine is animate or has its own will and human-like consciousness! Whenever we say “the ball has broken the window” we don‟t accuse the ball of having its own will in breaking the window and causing the damage! We‟re not assigning any additional human meanings to it in any way! The mere fact that the meaning we described it with is shared by humans, does not necessitate or even suggest exceeding the threshold of describing the event – or the property - in the right words!

So when we describe the creator by meanings that are necessitated by reason itself, or meanings that are attributed to Him in His authentic scripture, we are not in any way suggesting anything more than the linguistic threshold of this particular meaning; we do not in any way suggest that other human features or meanings should follow in attribution to Him from doing so! The fact that pagans actually merged the divine with created beings (not only humans), and thus ended worshipping human figures, even beasts and rats, not just picturing the creator as a human being; this doesn‟t abate the necessity of attributing all authentic attributes to the creator without exceeding them to other humanlike meanings as though the mere attribution of them should allow for analogy and claiming further similarities!

So again, when I say the ball broke the window, I‟m not by necessity implying or suggesting that this inanimate object is in fact animate or conscious or “human”! Unlike atheists, we humans normally know how to make sense of what they observe, and to tell animate from inanimate things! And it is not due to a psychological problem that healthy people see creation beyond this world! It is the way our minds are built!

He quotes J. Anderson Thomson in a letter that he wrote to him saying:

― 'The legacy of that is the default assumption, often fear, of human intention. We have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other than human causation.'‖

407

It is actually YOU who have a great deal of difficulty accepting the natural way our human minds operate! Why? Because it offends your faith, that‟s why! Because as an atheist, you do not believe that people should be thinking the way they do, with regards to the creator, or feeling the way they do towards religion, and if one day you could actually cut off that part in a man – whatever it is - that defines his spiritual intake of life, and his natural acceptance of his creator, you would so happily do it!

Are we really supposed to believe that humans – as a kind - suffer from a psychological trick of some sort that fools them all into believing the world to be the work of a perfect creator?

It has become quite clear that since Darwinians knew that people would naturally reject the corrupt logic of Darwinism as it is, they decided they had no choice but try to have them believe that the problem and the delusion is actually in human nature itself, in their own minds and the way they „evolved‟, not in Darwin‟s claim! So the rationale we‟re facing here goes pretty much like this: You cannot fully understand or accept theory X, because according to theory X – itself – you are not sufficiently evolved (mentally) to do that! So if you wish to accept X (despite its apparent irrationality and inconsistency), you have to presuppose the validity of X itself!

In his arrogant foolishness the atheist would look down on his opponent and say: ―Oh the poor fellow! You don‘t comprehend my argument because you‘re suffering from a problem that is inherent in every human being‖! It‟s only natural then that they found no better playground to forge such a destructive philosophy than the field of theoretical psychology! Hence the so called; evolutionary psychology! It is a Darwinian‟s attempt to explain aspects of the human psyche according to Darwinian evolution, so that a Darwinian reply is easily pumped in whenever normal people wonder why – for example – they find it ultimately rational and intuitive that there has to be a masterful omnipotent creator to which they should pay homage and submit, or why they feel great satisfaction in religion and spirituality or why they seek morality and justice, and ask questions of the afterlife, and so forth.

408

The claim that man at some point in history could not make the distinction between a friendly man and a hostile one, not to mention making the distinction between a shadow and a burglar (according to the example he gives here) is indeed too ridiculous to even mention!

To speak of “fear of human intention” as though it is some intrinsically human property is actually a delusion in its own right! It is a property that can neither be demonstrated in a man – except for a seriously paranoid man indeed – nor in beasts! Yes we do fear the unknown one way or another, but we do not “humanize” those things that we fear by necessity, nor do we fear the intentions of every next man that we know not, by necessity!

Let us first determine what exactly is meant by the term (human causation). If by human causation you mean the ascription of any given event in reality to a doer (a being) that is willful – in meaning – and possesses a multitude of attributes that are shared – in meaning – by humans; then you‟re talking about a fact of language and reason that defines the very way we humans perceive reality. The very meaning of the word (Cause) leads the human mind to a (causer) by necessity of language. At some point (end of regress) there has to come a willful causer who does those things in reality for a purpose! This fact is seen clearly every time we humans use the composition: (X caused Y). If X is dead matter, then we still need to know who caused X! And thus we find ourselves regressing the question to the point where we come to the inevitable meaning that a supreme creator did all that, all the way down to X and Y, all willfully and purposefully, and is to be praised and glorified because of that. There‟s no escaping the meanings of making, selecting, creating, running, keeping, controlling, composing, decomposing, balancing, giving life, taking life … etc, in human perception of the world and the way that we see it work! It‟s not just (causation) here that we do when we inquire about the willful source of all that; it‟s a statement of the overwhelmingly obvious that needs not be argued for! It follows naturally from the way both human language and reason work! It‟s not just „intuition‟ like Darwinians would easily call it in such an air as to belittle it or make it sound trivial or rationally insufficient for argumentation! It‟s the way language itself works!

409

Yes we do seek those immediate causes for a direct physical explanation that tells us certain information about the way this event was caused, but this doesn‟t tell us who caused it all, which remains to be a question that every reasonable man demands an answer to! And clearly enough, by “who” we are inquiring about a “personal being” that has a will and a purpose because this is the way we are built to think about such meanings that reality triggers in our minds as we perceive it! It thus becomes pathetically senseless when an atheist seeks so hard to convince people that their minds are actually playing tricks on them when they work this way, in search for an uncaused cause (which must be willful and personal by necessity of being uncaused)!

So when we see determinate creation and functional composition running like clockwork in nature, we have no choice – rationally and linguistically, not just intuitively – to ascribe this to a “willful and capable creator composer” – not just a „causer‟ - that must have done all that for a purpose, and that cannot by any means be “human”! We are speaking of certain attributes of ability, wisdom and knowledge; meanings that by necessity of healthy reason – not just intuition - have to be there in a willful creator, – regardless of the “how”! We do that naturally! However, like we argued earlier, it does not follow by necessity from this ascription and assignation of necessary (or other heavenly revealed) meanings, that this creator be a “human figure” or “humanlike”!

So again, if by “human causation” Dawkins means certain attributes that could be shared in meaning by humans as well as other non-human doers; then this is true, and it is the outcome of proper reasoning and semantics performed naturally by every healthy human mind! It is the way our minds work!

Atheists would usually fool themselves into believing that they are justified in this rejection by the widespread pagan nonsense among “theists”! So an atheist would refuse a rationally sound conclusion and even take it for a defective form of reasoning, on the grounds that he sees the overwhelming majority of theists in the world actually worshipping human – and even animal - figures! But does this give him an excuse to make such utterly false and extremist conclusions? Absolutely not! Because he knows that Muslims

410

do not do that! And if he presumes people to have a tendency to paganism because of this property in man, then he obviously does not understand what he is talking about.

Pagans forged this imagery of their deities not because man is naturally inclined to think this way, and to make up “anthropomorphic” gods! This is not true! Pagan religions were – in their origins – monotheistic, with people well informed about their almighty creator through selected prophets and messengers teaching them about God! However, it happened at a certain point in history that people were fooled into honoring their sages by means of honoring statues of their images! Gradually, certain philosophies emerged in those nations that – coupled with the wastefulness of men and the loss of heavenly knowledge amongst them – raised those statues to more than honoring; to worship!

Extremity in position towards those idols (the individuals they symbolize) then started to accumulate even further! And what started as a baseless claim that the spirits of those dead people heard people‟s prayers and mediated their appeals to the Lord; ended in the claim that they were actually sons of God or even His own physical manifestations or „avatars‟! And from there, further philosophies broke the boundary between the Lord and His creatures, and beyond the concept of the physical manifestation of “God” in this world (and by physical and material in this respect I mean the created material; the creator they claim turns Himself into or mixes with the material that He created!); there emerged total pantheism (that matter itself is in reality nothing but Him!), panentheism, and similar philosophies, along with all trinities and councils of gods ever known in the history of pagan religions! Myths were easily forged, manipulated, accumulated, rationalized, argued for and against, constantly spreading and branching through time and space!

In addition, certain earthly properties and philosophies of pagan practices and rituals were always specifically appealing to the masses; properties that make it really tempting for people to accept! They sanctified unabridged sexuality, gave to the human body a share of the divine; to female genitalia in particular, and turned group sex into an act of worship, in the house of worship itself! A religion with very little taboo and very little restraint on its
411

followers, and such extremely seductive conception of sexuality and indulgence in the pleasures of the flesh, is certainly one that appeals more to the masses; to that part of humans that desires to have no limitations or codes of obligatory control to their physical instincts and desires whatsoever! It is the same reason – at the other extreme end - why atheists hold on so tight to their faith despite the sheer fundamental problems that they do realize in it! It tempts them by the idea of liberation, it liberates them from any law, commitment, or ritual that other religions exhibit (or at least they hope it does).

Paganism is indeed appealing and is currently spreading in the west all anew! I mean many people may actually choose to convert to paganism and practice witchcraft just to enjoy ritual nudity, the ceremony of sexual intercourse and ritual orgies with the priestesses and fellow pagans in the temple for free! Of course it is so pleasurable when this is what your religion teaches you, rather than a religion that condemns such practices and makes one feel guilty about them! In paganism, it‟s not the search for the truth, the nature of the deities or the answers to big questions that appeals to people by necessity; in many cases it‟s the way of life that tempts them!

This story of emergence, spread and philosophical growth of paganism across nations of old, is narrated in Muslim authentic scriptures, in the story of the nation of the sons of Noah; the story of the first gradual deviation of an originally monotheistic nation into paganism and polytheism.

Now the reason I brought this up, is not to argue against this claim concerning “human causation” here! It is rather to clarify that paganism, and the fact that pagan theists all worship “humanlike” images, sometimes even “beast” images, is not in the least due to that alleged „psychological property‟ or inclination in man, but rather due to a gradual process of religious and moral degeneration and accumulation of innovations, philosophies and fallacies throughout successive generations.

With the pass of time, less of the prophetic truth is inherited, and more manmade fallacies and philosophies are made up and passed on in its place!
412

The story of religion is indeed fundamentally distinct from whatever atheists think they know!

Now directly after the previous quotation Dawkins comments: ―We naturally generalized that – (he means‖ human causation‖) - to divine intention.‖

So I hope it is clear now how vacuous and childish this argument really is!

Quote:

―Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary in the first place. When we finally reach the long-hoped-for Theory of Everything, we shall see that the six key numbers depend upon each other, or on something else as yet unknown, in ways that we today cannot imagine.‖ (The delusion p.143)

Just look – my respectable reader – at how blind faith leads the way to forging actual mythology in the name of science, even against the very way our human minds work! What is this statement here really, what does it do? Nothing but an atheist‟s attempt to give his followers a fool‟s hope that the time will come in the future when a new Darwin will emerge in physics and make up yet another counter-rational proposition that kicks creation and perfection out of the origins of the cosmos once and for good! “Hopefully the long sought (theory of everything) in physics will do this job for us, and raise our consciousness even higher! So keep dreaming folks!‖

Now this statement is in fact – and against all that he hoped for - a gift that he gives me, holding that all six knobs were interdependent and were never free to vary! He does not realize that this makes it all the more impossible to claim that some of its laws and values may have been tuned – by chance - prior to others, or that some other universes may have failed where this one succeeded! You are of course free at this point to laugh your guts out at this striking oxymoron (tuned by chance)!

Einstein is famously quoted to have said: “Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?” Of course, it is of no concern to me here the true nature of Einstein‟s faith; though of Jewish origins, he definitely did not die a Jew! However, what comes to my attention in this quotation is the fact that people
413

as bright as that man, could really be so blind in approaching the metaphysical and the Big questions of life! He died a blind man because he sought the truth from his own mind; his own creation! The truth is not a relative or subjective prospect, it is what it is; the truth! It has to be obtained from its right source by virtue of evidence, not invented! It is not to be made up by a „genius‟ mind!

It does not take a genius to obtain those answers, but an honest heart in an unbiased search, to find the truth wherever it may be (no search actually even needs to be done at all as you will realize proceeding with this book, and as I will discuss in Volume two)! And if you have that heart, you will be guided, regardless of your IQ! No consciousness raising, no unanswerable riddles at the core of the faith, no mysteries and no need for science of any kind! Every question that a man needs to know about his creator and the reason He created him, does have a perfectly clear and easy answer that goes in perfect accord with commonsense and proper human rationality, for every healthy human mind to easily comprehend and willingly and lovingly adhere to. Just let go of your biases, be truly willing to let go of it all and you‟ll see you don‟t even have to search at all to find it!

Any honest seeker for the truth should at least start by admitting this fact: If we were indeed made by a perfectly wise creator, then we must expect His message to be as simple as it takes for the simplest human mind to understand it and have the human soul enlightened by it. After all, he is supposed to have created us all for the purpose of living by that particular message! So it should be the easiest, the clearest, the steadiest and the straightest of all ways known to man, always in the middle between every two opposing extremes! It should be the best and most effective and economic “operating system” for the human machine, so to speak!

Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, but he refused to admit a fact as utterly simple as this! He did himself a great injustice by all means! I say that because I know the Lord is just, He is merciful, He would lead every honest seeker to the truth! Had Einstein been a true seeker for the truth in this particular matter (the biggest matter of all), he would have been guided to accept it like all those who did! It was always there before his eyes!
414

So what limitation of “choice” is Einstein talking about?

When man searches and examines the Universe, and he sees that the more he knows the further he realizes that it couldn‟t possibly be made in any better way for the sake of man and other living beings on Earth to live in this particular way, how can he possibly dare say that the creator must have had no choice but to make things the way they are? We, the limited humans, are bound to see perfectness in no other model of matter and mortal cosmic system but this very one that we observe! This is how we are made. Does this mean that the almighty creator who made it, couldn‟t possibly create another universe with totally different systems and orders for a different purpose with totally different forms of life, who would also fail to imagine any better universe? Certainly not! It doesn‟t by any means restrict Him! It only restricts US! It shows us that we have been made with this particular mind, with this rationality, to only come to this particular conclusion every time we approach the problem: It‟s absolutely seamless and it really couldn‟t possibly be made in any better way! It‟s our human modeling of reality that is restricted as such, not the powers of the maker of both reality and the human mind that models it!

What those people forget – or neglect deliberately - is the essential meaning of purpose and function beneath this magnificent process of creation! Once you have that particular purpose in the picture, you realize what is why, and see that things are the way they are because this is the best way for them to be made for the sake of the purpose that He chose for His creation! And this is indeed what perfectness means!

((Did you think that We had created you for naught (no purpose), and that you would not be returned unto Us?)) Translation of the Qur‟an verse (23|115)

((We did not create the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in vain (in play))) Translation of verse (21|16)

So, it is not that the creator- praised be His name - had no choice, it is because of His particular choice of the job that this universe should do, and
415

the purpose that defines our own existence in it; that He made it in this particular way, and no other!

So when we read the atheist author making this comment:

―It will turn out that there is only one way for a universe to be. Far from God being needed to twiddle six knobs, there are no knobs to twiddle.‖ (The delusion p.144)

We realize immediately the magnitude of the “crime” that he is really committing against himself and his readers! Every believer in the creator believes the universe to be made this way for the good of man (which is, despite the author here, the core theme of the anthropic principle!)! So obviously any “twiddling” should spoil the system, and remove it from hosting man the way it does; because it is already made as perfect as it should be! This is why there can be no tolerance for any form of “twiddling” in the first place! So I ask: by what proper reason or scientific integrity does this understanding lead us to denying the creator instead of glorifying Him? The absolute inverse of the way a healthy mind works!

This is – by every meaning in the word – a crime! An act of piracy!

At some point they find they need to argue for an infinite number of universes covering all logical possibilities so that probability may help them support their beliefs, and here they find they may need to claim the exact opposite for the sake of their faith; that there are indeed no other possibilities for a universe at all! So which way do you wish to have it guys?

It never fails to amaze me how atheist philosophers would easily accept the idea that our universe may be one of billion other universes (multi-verse), or even that we may have been planted on it as the experimentation of a superior (more evolved) alien species, or something of that sort, and at the same time, dismiss as “fairy tale” the idea of a willful supreme creator that is unparalleled, and un-created! It is even more amazing that they accuse the idea of a single masterful unparalleled creator of provoking the question “but who created God” while they do not suffer answering that very same question in the proposition of the superior alien nation (for example), not to
416

mention other regressive stories of cosmic origins that exclude creation! Whatever answer they seek for the question of origins apart from creation is not an answer at all, it only pushes the question further back!

So it‟s quite obvious that they‟re deliberately resorting to any escape strategy or any fantasy that would leave them free from the consequences of having to believe in an almighty creator in the beyond! They are indeed driven in their selections of faith by nothing other than a persistent rejection of “submission” to the will of that creator! They are willing because of it to go to far extremes striving against basic axioms of human rationality! You can see this clearly in every single statement in this book (The God Delusion)! It reeks with it!

Dawkins then goes on to explain how he finds no problem accepting the “model” of recurrent cycles of the universe crunching and expanding (the serial big crunch model)! He knows as well as we all know that there is no way any such theory could ever be proven or falsified by any means of science that we humans know! Yet, he chooses to grant it the name of science, and have it – or the other “parallel megaverse model” - for faith in what was there before the origination of the universe as we know it only because he hates to admit the creator! He might as well choose any other “theory” (actually: myth) in its stead, for no justification or proof whatsoever; only a personal preference of faith!

Suppose that, for example I chose to believe that the universe is actually no more than a huge software program on some alien computer machine; even better; it is only a composition of particles at the subatomic level of an atom in a grain of sand in one planet hanging around in another amazingly larger universe; how could he possibly prove me wrong, on the grounds of his own selected theory? He cannot! All he would have to say is: “this is very improbable”! According to what exactly was this probability estimated? Nothing at all! Just his own personal faith; his previous choice of theories for faith that is expressed in an unverifiable estimation of statistical probabilities in areas of human knowledge that have nothing to do with statistics whatsoever!
417

In fact, I think I should not use any more of those rhetoric stories like the “grain of sand” example I just made, lest one of them comes to the liking of some poor atheist theorist here or there, and so he picks it up, creates some theoretical model for it, and the next thing you know, you find it published in some science magazine as yet another “theory” on the „origins of the universe‟!

What the professor is doing here is pretty much like selecting a garment in a clothing store! He chooses whatever he likes! First he picks the suit, then he searches for a matching tie, then a shirt and a nice pair of socks, and finally, the most suitable pair of shoes that goes well with the combination! There you go! You have made yourself a handsome set of „scientific‟ beliefs that suits your taste just fine!

In a footnote he says:

―Susskind (2006) gives a splendid advocacy of the anthropic principle in the megaverse. He says the idea is hated by most physicists. I can't understand why. I think it is beautiful - perhaps because my consciousness has been raised by Darwin.‖ (Delusion p.145)

Oh yes indeed it has been raised! High enough that you can now pick the most “beautiful” theoretical “tie” to match your theoretical “tuxedo”, make it all look whichever way you like, and call that science!

By that, (that child-in-a-candy-store model of forging faith) he so arrogantly holds the position of denying the creator!

Now look at this statement:

―Nobody understands what goes on in singularities such as the big bang, so it is conceivable that the laws and constants are reset to new values, each time.‖

Sheer contradiction; even in the same statement! (Nobody understands… ) vs. (so it is conceivable that…)! Since nobody understands, thus it is conceivable!
418

If indeed nobody understands what goes on in such a singularity, one the likes of which we have never witnessed, then how – on Earth - could we conclude that the laws and constants were reset to new values there? This is like saying: Since I do not know or understand what happened last night, then it is conceivable to me that X and Y happened last night!

We should understand that a serious process of change – naturally unlike anything we‟ve ever seen or could possibly imagine – must have taken place there, to create the system that we currently observe as the Universe! But the reason we Muslims know that a change must have taken place is because this is what we are told in authentic scripture, not because astrophysicists and cosmologists suggest it! We have clarified repeatedly the fact that no humanly affordable analogy could be made between the process of creating a machine, and any of the processes that take place within the machine itself! So whatever it was that really took place in that unique event, is by necessity incomparable to anything we have ever seen, or can possibly use to establish a proper understanding of it!

Thus we say that all we can afford to do – as humans – to learn anything at all about those origins, is take the news that we were given from the creator Himself as it is – after proving it to be His -, and ask for no more! We should stick to revelation as the only authority of knowledge in this respect, and ask for nothing more than it tells us concerning this singularity!

We – humans - have no right to object to some authentic story of creation or of the events at the Day of Judgment – for example – just because they draw an image we have never seen anything like! Of course it must be a unique un-analogous event! We do admit that it has to be unlike anything we have ever seen or experienced in this world, we even find that to be a rational necessity! Yes the story has to be rationally possible of course, but it is also – by necessity – incomparable to anything we have ever seen in this Universe!

An example to this arrogance of theirs is their objection to the scriptural story that the Lord created Adam from dust and clay, and created Eve from a rib in Adam‟s body! Amazing? Oh yes indeed! One would certainly love to
419

see something like that as it happens! However, we do recognize the rational necessity of its being out of reach of human analogy! It is not just another part of the ongoing chain of human birth by reproduction that we see every day; it is the very top of the chain of human existence; so it has to be different; fundamentally so! But can you dare say that the way it is said to have happened in scripture, is rationally impossible? Absolutely not! That‟s the point! We need to prove that this is indeed the word of God, and then we have no choice but to shut up and listen!

Another famous example to atheistic arrogance is their ridicule and objection to the story of the virgin birth of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them)! A creator who has shown us such grandeur and richness in creation, and has shown us species multiplying through a dazzling variety of means of reproduction, some even without any form of sexual reproduction whatsoever, how could it be “impossible” for Him to create a child in a woman‟s womb without intercourse with a male, when He chooses to do that? It is an utterly arrogant and unjustifiable position to reject this story on the grounds that it is rationally “impossible”! No it‟s not! Because we are speaking of an omnipotent creator who has already created – with ease – all this unbelievably complex and perfect place that we call the world, with everything in it! So how does anybody dare make such an objection? What monopoly of observation, analogy or imagination does an atheist think he has to apply upon the way the creator created life in dead things, so that when he listens to an authentic narration where God says that He created Adam with his own hand and blew His created spirit into him, or that He created him out of dust, and said (Be) and he was, he‟d instantly jump up and say: “This is impossible”? On what grounds of reason could he possibly build such an objection? On the very little in this world that he – the human – can observe and analogize? And whoever said this has anything to do with anything that is taking place anywhere in this world as it is, to begin with?

Another example is their objection to the story of resurrection of mankind on the Day of Judgment! They would say: How possibly could all humans who have turned into total dust, in layers and layers of Earth, ever since the dawn of mankind, how could they all be rebuilt and from pure dust, the way it is
420

told in scripture of Islam? Well, whoever said that we, humans, should be equipped - by creation - with the means or the powers to imagine and explain how the Lord will do that when the time comes? Whoever said that we should be equipped with the means to understand how the Lord created life from dead matter in the first place?

This is the very argument the Lord makes in the Qur‟an when He says:

Translation of meanings of verses (36|78-79): ((And he (the infidel) coined for Us a similitude, and had forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have all rotted away? Say (addressing Prophet Muhammad): He will revive them Who built them the first time, He is Knower of every creation))

Translation of meanings (17|51): ((…Then they will say to you: Who shall bring us back (to life)? Say: He who created you the first time...))

They dare analogize the creator to His own creation, and forget that it was He who made them the first time, and it should not be difficult for Him to do it again in whatever way he chooses, in another singularity that takes place after the universe as we know it is terminated! So what rational impossibility could they even dare speak of here? When the scripture tells them that on that day, on Judgment day, they will have their mouths shut and their very own limbs made to speak and witness on their deeds, they object saying this is impossible! How do they dare? The answer comes to them in the very same manner:

Translation (41|21): ((And they say unto their skins (when the Lord makes them to speak): Why testify ye against us? They say: Allah has given us speech; He who gives speech to all things, and who created you all the first time, and unto whom you are returned.))

As dazzling and strange those events narrated here naturally sound, none of them is rationally “impossible”! Yes we‟ve never seen anything like them, but this doesn‟t make them impossible! Nothing about them could give any man the kind of argument that would entitle him to claim those texts not to be the words of the creator!
421

This is why scholars and sages of Islam („Ulema) always explain how it is that authentic scripture in Islam is only in perfect accord with rationality and that though scripture may include puzzling things that are beyond our imagining, the likes of which we have never seen, it never includes meanings that are beyond what is rationally possible!

Look at how Dawkins then re-iterates what he thinks is an argument from (anthropic principle) applied to a serial multi-universe model this time rather than a parallel one! He says:

―Once again, the anthropic principle does its explanatory duty. Of all the universes in the series, only a minority have their 'dials' tuned to biogenic conditions.‖

And once again we say: This is not the anthropic principle “explaining” anything, this is the very same attempt to ascribe outstanding perfectness in creation to chance (or chancoid!!) events applying a false understanding of statistical improbability to a fictional story that is nowhere to be found but in this sick Darwinian imagination!

When he says:

―It now looks as though our own universe is destined to expand forever.‖(Delusion p. 146)

I can‟t help wondering now: Why doesn‟t this observation strike him, in the same way he chose to believe – and against all reason - that all creatures only “look as though” they were created when in fact they are not? Because if it is so, then your consciousness should be raised high enough now that you can easily take the exact opposite to what anything at all “looks” as though it is! And then we have to ask you: What sense could you ever make of any observation that you see anywhere? In reality this preposterous approach to explaining reality proves to be – to use Dawkins‟ idioms - a “get out of jail free card” for any theorist to make up any proposition he likes best, and claim it for a plausible “explanation” no matter how anti-rational its very foundations may really be, and regardless of the fact that it will never be proven or falsified empirically; and when asked he simply says:
422

“Darwin has raised my consciousness! Go get your own consciousness raised and then we may debate!”

It does not surprise me at all that he then goes on to display another theory that appeals to him all the more: (The Lee Smolin‟s multiverse model), one that is actually orders of magnitude more inane than the theory of evolution by natural selection! It mixes both the parallel and the serial models in one model, adding the theoretical mystery of the “black hole” to the mix, proposing it to be like a womb where the birth of new “universes” takes place in some form of physical and cosmological heredity (!), offering a soup of theory that looks pretty much like Darwinian evolution! No wonder then that Dawkins likes it!

From the very same source of mythical nonsense comes this theory that actually raises Darwinian evolution with all its logical scandals to an extra-cosmic level! I suppose we now have to search for the thing that runs the whole process for the sake of its continuity, the way they believe genes do in natural life! Too bad we have never seen a single universe other than our own! And it‟s only too bad that we couldn‟t possibly think of a place where we could dig out the buried fossils of a dead universe! But never mind that! Just enjoy the show!

I‟m really sorry that this is the kind of debate we are forced to make with people who profess to be people of science, seekers of the truth! So sorry indeed!

He does in fact realize the “extravagance” and sheer “craziness” – for lack of a better decent word really – of such ideological prostitution that he‟d rather resort to and take for a faith than admit the creator! He knows that even by his own reasoning of what “an explanation” should be like, this nonsense does indeed raise a great deal of difficulties that cannot be found in the concept of creation! So in attempt to find himself a way out of this position he has got himself into, what does he do? He rebounds – again – to the corrupt and clearly biased use of “improbability” and claims that none of this nonsense that he holds here is any more “improbable” than the creator! And of course he does not miss a chance to remind us that have we been but
423

a little bit more (consciousness-raised), we wouldn‟t have had any difficulty accepting these assertions!

―The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability.‖ (Delusion p. 147)

Oh Really? „Genuinely extravagant‟ and „apparently extravagant‟! Sounds so easy now, doesn‟t it? Well prove it then! Prove it by means of statistical improbability! I dare you to do that! I give you and your followers ten billion years from today to come up with a statistical proof for this courageous assertion (according to your own conception and application of statistical improbability)!

So easily could anybody claim that event X is more statistically improbable than event Y, when both are fundamentally out of reach of any human process of science or statistical inference of any form to begin with! So while „Y‟ is apparently extravagant when in fact it‟s not, „X‟ on the other hand is „genuinely‟ extravagant, so let‟s take Y for the truth! This is the level of argumentation we are dealing with now!

He then makes a ridiculous sarcastic image of “how” the creator may be keeping all elements of the system from going astray, keeping (electrons) for example from losing perfect accord with what they are all made for:

―It is because God constantly keeps a finger on each and every particle, curbing its reckless excesses and whipping it into line with its colleagues to keep them all the same.‖ (Delusion p. 148)

What an impudent childish complaint indeed! It‟s like a little kid making all forms of false excuses to escape doing his homework!

Of course this has nothing to do with the way the Lord does what He does! It is not our fault that you have been fed since early childhood, the image of Zeus throwing lightning bolts from above the cloud, or that of the white bearded guy in the renowned Michelangelo painting on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, stretching his arm to reach out for Adam! It is not our fault that this is what you think that all people of religion believe the creator to be like!
424

The creator is the supreme keeper of the system at the far end of the chain of causes and governing laws, from beyond the universe itself!

We cannot know how He keeps it all the way it is from where He is; we can only see a small part of the chain of causes from its other end; from where we stand! The end that we can observe and comprehend! Every law of nature we have ever discovered is but a small part of the chain, as seen from our end! What is there beyond the universe is not within the domain of our observation or analogy! The more we learn about nature the further we realize that what we still do not know, is much more than what we have discovered! And yes we still have a lot more to learn, but none of that which we know, or will ever come to discover about the way we observe nature to work, has anything to do with the way the Lord almighty keeps it all and runs it all under His dominion of power from the other end! This is all no more than the “top of the iceberg”! Everything we can observe and rationalize in nature is made as such so that we could learn it on our own, and make benefit of it for the sake of the purpose of our being on this Earth; but there will always be a place where no man can go or can even begin to imagine or analogize to anything he has ever seen or known!

We are definitely not speaking of a cartoonish image of some human figure that is sitting against a control panel above some cloud, running the system as such! We are not speaking of a gap somewhere in this created universe, where a created creator is doing what he does! Far from it! Praised be the names of Allah!

So the question of complexity – as in created systems – is not applicable to Him in the first place! He is not „simple‟ or „complex‟ because neither of the two meanings should apply to Him! He is not “made of parts”, and He certainly does not submit to the laws of the universe that HE created! When will they ever manage to get the creator - in their notion - out of his created universe, and quit picturing Him by analogy to His creatures in such a way?! The claim to “explain” Him is – by necessity of healthy reason – false! This is, in reality, the basic rational remedy that Darwinians do need! We are not asking them to counter their intuition, or to reverse their rationality, the way they are asking all of us to do; we are asking them to come back to their

425

senses! To fix what they have corrupted! To simply acknowledge that the omnipotent creator is not a creature! He is not to be tested or reasoned the way we study any of His creatures! Period!

Is this meaning so difficult to understand?

The Lord as we know Him is not ―simultaneously keeping a gazillion fingers on wayward Electrons‖! Our faith in the creator does not – by any means – lead us to such nonsense!

Again he whines about the simplicity of the argument of creation, and that nothing is easier than saying “God did it”! Well yes of course nothing is easier! And yes of course “God” did it all! But this – as we have explained in an earlier section – does not leave a noble and wise researcher in natural sciences without a good cause and a wise objective for research! It puts him on the only right track with his process, gives him the right end, and keeps him occupied only with research that really helps people and improves their lives! Natural causes on Earth are to be examined and researched by the tools of natural sciences for the sake of achieving actual verifiable benefit to man, not for the sake of giving him some philosophical nonsense to believe in regarding the origins of life and other bigger questions! This is what science is for! It‟s about time that scientists learnt the limits of their tools! Whatever it is that is out there beyond the universe, or that is responsible for our origins, cannot be known by doing “science”! But only under the power of their blind faith do they refuse to accept this perfectly rational limitation!

It‟s like a plumber who insists on fixing a broken wristwatch applying his craft and his tools as a plumber! Those tools just don‟t work there! This is not the kind of questions the answers to which we should be doing natural sciences to obtain!

So if the professor will not be satisfied with his practice of science unless he uses it to obtain answers that cannot be obtained by means of empirical research; then he‟d better find himself another job, because he obviously has a serious problem in understanding the nature and limits of his craft!

Quote:

426

―A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple‖

Well sure He cannot be “Simple”! We never said He is “simple”! We do not say He is “complex” either! Both meanings are characteristic of a created system of His composition! This is the scale of analogy that we humans apply to created compositions and systems that we observe in the world around us! The creator is not a created thing! So the measure of simplicity and complexity does not apply to Him! Period.

In fact, it is no surprise that Dawkins did not understand the argument he is trying to respond to by those words! By “simple answer” we mean an answer that fits easily and perfectly in every healthy human mind! And that‟s exactly what the true answer to a question like: “who made this world the way it is?” should be! It is simple because knowing it and accepting it does not demand of a man to search for tools to study the creator Himself the way any created thing could be studied! It rather has him convinced – as a rational necessity - that the creator cannot be analogized to any of His creatures, and that He – in Himself – is not a problem for science to solve!

This is another sample of his “whining” against the creator (that‟s what it is really, nothing even remotely close to rational argumentation!)!

Quote:

―Worse (from the point of view of simplicity), other corners of God's giant consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being - and whatever

intelligent aliens there might be on other planets in this and 100 billion other galaxies. He even, according to Swinburne, has to decide continuously not to intervene miraculously to save us when we get cancer. That would never do, for, 'If God answered most prayers for a relative to recover from cancer, then cancer would no longer be a problem for humans to solve.' And then what would we find to do with our time?‖
427

Does this man not understand the meaning of the word “omniscient”? Does he not recognize the rational necessity of the creator being as such: Infinitely capable? And yes, He decides on who should get cancer and who should not, and who gets cured and who does not! The whole thing is up to Him! His choice to have a man cured is not intervention! It is His choice to have all related natural causes in the universe that have to do with the healing of a man “tuned” particularly for this man to be cured! Now let me elaborate this meaning a bit further my kind reader, because it holds within it a graphic demonstration for the rational necessity of the Lord‟s control over all existence, its fate and its destiny, in addition to the rational necessity of His oneness, praised be His name!

When we say the creator chose for X to be saved from cancer, we are not speaking of a fairy with a magic wand that came down from heaven and like in the cartoons she just touched the sick man and he was instantly cured! Absolutely not! What happens to a man who is chosen to be cured, is that all universal causes necessary for his healing are made to collaborate in just the right way for him to be cured! However, sometimes people appear to have been cured miraculously, this is of course a relative aspect that comes from human inability to detect or follow the causes that lead – by the decree of God - to healing! We only know just a few causes here at our dim end of the chain! The most immediate ones so to speak! Thus when we give a sick man the cure, we are supplying only part of the causes that should all be orchestrated in perfect harmony for that man to heal! And this orchestration in its totality, from top to bottom, is not up to us! We can only afford to use what we have known – by experience – to work as a cause, but the whole thing is up to the Lord Almighty!

So what the Lord normally does is pass His decree of your healing as swiftly and easily as every other natural event takes place in the Universe under His previous will! Everything is already running by His control and His will alone, at all times! All people‟s prayers are heard by Him, simultaneously! He is not like creatures, with limited perception; He is not limited to perceive the sight of one thing at a time, or the hearing of one thing at a time! This is a limit that He imposed on our senses and perception by

428

creation; it does not apply to Him. His sight and hearing, along with His power, and all other attributes are perfect, and unlike any creature, no deed distracts Him from another deed, no sight distracts Him from another sight, no sound distracts Him from another sound!

So everything that He wills and does is part of the way He runs the entire universe, regardless of how mundane or extraordinary it seems to us (according to our relative level of knowledge and experience of observation). We may see some of the causes (direct or indirect) or we may not! In all cases it all runs after nothing but His will!

Even an action as simple as holding this book in your hands to read it, demands the orchestration of an endless number of causes, only very few of which you know of and can afford – normally – to control! You have to set proper lighting in the room, stretch your hands out and hold the book so your eyes could start reading. But as simple as this action is and as limited as its causes appear to be, we may argue that among its causes, are all factors that contribute to its taking place the way that we desire, like, for example, security from an event that would prevent the action of reading from taking place! For example, whatever functions take place in your body so you could stretch your hands out and hold the book may simply be seized when you least expect! And while you know how to move your arms, and they would normally obey your command, you do not have any control upon the multitude of systems that would normally work in your body involuntarily every time you issue such a simple command from your brain to your arm!

Now it is important to understand that the motion of more than one particle in nature would normally be cause for a lot of things (ends and purposes) that the creator wills to happen simultaneously! A man may be saved from the very same car accident that kills his friend! The same car accident may be cause (among the causes) for the loss of a man‟s money in repair! It may also be cause for the promotion of a heroic police officer and the tragedy of a fireman, not to mention the destruction of a store‟s façade! It may also be cause for two men to meet in the hospital and make an agreement that changes the path of both their lives! So we say that this set of particles (constituting the event of the accident) was made by the Lord as part of

429

countless sets of causes that intersect in it, for a variety of effects that are all willed and perfectly determined by the creator, to go in no other way but the way they did! This is not limited by a single event in nature, it actually necessitates that every element in every system in nature be directly or indirectly affected by other elements of other systems through intersection of causes and effects all across the universe! He – and only He - willed for all that, and He caused for it all, simultaneously!

This concept of distinct indirect causes was approached by chaos theory mathematicians as they spoke of what they termed “the butterfly effect” or “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”. It‟s a novel attempt to model what is in fact no more than the tip of the tail of a huge elephant! The term comes from the idea that one small butterfly flapping its wings in the air, could eventually have a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent historic events, like for example causing a chain of events that ends up in a hurricane somewhere else in the world! The idea is indeed difficult to grasp or imagine, but it is true nonetheless! There is an essentially delicate balance in the universe between all forms of events that take place in it, so that everything goes under total control, and in no other way than the exact way it is supposed to go! The creator of the universe does – by necessity of reason – have the dominion on all that; on every single thing in it! There can be no room for chance or unexpected results there; no event could take place without a fully known and previously determined purpose by the creator, or else He loses His rationally necessary dominion! As we have seen, every particle is made to move on a particular trajectory in space-time for a huge set of purposes, all are effects that its simple motion is supposed to be part of the set of causes for! Perfect determination on all levels is absolutely essential for life to proceed the way the Lord Has chosen for every single thing in it, because obviously they all affect one another!

Every event that takes place anywhere in the world, changes the structure of countless systems, causing future impacts that no human can possibly expect or predict! And this is exactly the very core of the idea of the butterfly effect.

But we are not talking about a human creator; never forget this meaning!

430

You are not living in a vacuum! You are in constant interaction with everything around you! There are systems decaying inside of you, right now as you read those very words; leaving output from your body to nature, and the other way round! There is energy moving in and out of you at all times! There are waves, fields, charges and fluids in constant motion! The moment you move your hand to – for example – open a door, a displacement of air takes place around it that may be cause to some effect that you in the least expected! As for the creator, He should know it in advance; not only so, He should actually have it as a predetermined cause for every effect that it yields in the future, from now and on to the end of this world; just as He made the simple motion of your hand a cause for the opening of that door! Of all that, you know nothing but the very simple fact that you are opening the door! Something you easily do every day!

So little do we know indeed!

((They will ask you concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command of my Lord, and only little knowledge have you (all) been given.)) Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an verse (17|85)

Now with further insight, we should come to the conclusion that there can be only one almighty, omnipotent, willful creator who runs the entire universe according to His will, and His will alone, in any given instant of time. It is rationally impossible that there be more than one! This is because the nature of the universe and the way it runs, necessitates that the will of the creator for a certain system or portion of the Universe, does not contradict, or stand in the way of His will for another system! His will for a certain child to be born, does not come in the way of His will for a certain man – for example – not to have children! His will for a man to die in an accident, should not come in the way of His will for another man to come out of it alive! By coming in its way I mean that all particles in the universe should work in the way that only leads to both events taking place the way He wills simultaneously! Of course I only chose to speak of two events for the sake of simplifying the picture! So, if there were another authority with a separate will sharing dominion and control over the Universe with Him, The system will certainly fail, or it will have to split, for there will be a conflict of will

431

that cannot be tolerated in such an unbelievably sensitive system! And that‟s exactly what the Qur‟an tells us.

Translation of the meanings of the Qur‟an (21|22): ((Had there been other gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have been disordered...))

Translation of the Qur‟an (23|91): ((Allah has not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; for then each god would have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.))

You pray for your god to bring you victory on your enemy, and the enemy prays to his god to make him the victorious one! What shall be of that? You pray to your god to heal you, and he wills to answer your prayer, but that would cause something to happen against the will of another god! What would be then? Those are only examples to bring the image closer to your mind, for in reality, as we have stated earlier, every single event that takes place anywhere in the universe, has to be in perfect accord with the will and purpose that is intended for every other event, because it does have an impact on it, one way or another!

So I ask my kind reader to reread the last quotation by Dawkins about “God” and the way he thinks he “intervenes” with nature, one more time, and judge for himself the level of ignorance we are forced to deal with in response to this literature of his!

You may laugh as you wish then when you read professor Dawkins exclaiming that certain author X ―mistakes what it means to explain something, and he also seems not to understand what it means to say of something that it is simple‖!

So unbelievably arrogant and ideologically flat is his discussion of the being of the creator! What could you possibly know about that? And where could you possibly obtain such knowledge? Reason has it that His essence be unlike anything at all!

432

((…Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer.)) Translation of verse (42|11)

It is indivisible, yes, but not because it is an exceedingly complex system, but because quite simply, it is not a created system that we can analogize to any system that we see! It is not something that we even have the right to call a system to begin with! His being is not a “composition” of parts! Yes He does have a face, a hand, and even fingers, as it is narrated in Islamic texts, and as we explained in an earlier section, but these are not “parts”, in the sense that our organs are! We do understand the meaning and the deeds that those attributes do, but we have no right to analogize them to any created equivalents of any sort! Yes Adam was created after the image of the Lord, but this is only in the meaning, in the fact that he shares the meaning of many such attributes of the Lord! And while they are composed parts in Adam, they are nothing like that in God! The Lord has eyes and He can see, and so does Adam, the Lord can hear, and so does Adam, the Lord has a face and so does Adam! It is especially glorified as an attribute to the Lord, and so is the face to a man! This is what is meant by the image in heavenly scripture! And had Christians not wasted the actual words of God, they would have found solid verses like the one I just quoted from the Qur‟an, directing their understanding to the truth regarding the being of the Lord and the truth regarding His attributes!

None of these meanings that Allah attributes to Himself necessitates that the He be in any way analogous to His creation, or be in the form or “physical likeness” of a creature! We do not know and cannot possibly know or imagine how He knows all that He knows and does all that He does the way He does, simultaneously, but that certainly does not contradict or inhibit the rational necessity of His being the only being capable of doing it, and the necessity of His being un-analogous to anything that He created!

So, people of science, dare not speak of your creator like you speak of a lab rat! Praised be His almighty being! Desist before it is too late, when no regrets could do you any good!

433

The professor then concludes with the story of a certain Cambridge public event of which he was part, and describes how frustrated he was that the audience was religious, and implied that they were all stubborn, insisting on “arguments from incredulity”! He goes on describing futile details repeating the very same arguments from improbability that he has centered his entire case upon! He makes it clear that he is ready to believe in any “god‟ just as long as it – in itself – could be explained by perhaps some Darwinian story! He complains of opponents calling his position a “nineteenth century” position, and claims that such a comment should not come from people who are embarrassed to mention that they still believe in miracles like “virgin birth”! He blatantly calls it absurd and irrational! And since we have fairly demolished this position on the course of the previous part, perhaps even more than once and with more than a single argument, we find it wasteful to readdress it again here!

So, to sum up, I found it would be best to skip commenting in detail on that part, and even the conclusion by which he concludes this chapter!

Instead, I will make my own conclusion to this part, from whence we conclude this volume as a whole.

434