A Critical Review of Stephen Hawking's Godless Universe by Junaid Hasan

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF
STEPHEN HAWKING’S
GODLESS UNIVERSE
Junaid Hassan, M.Phil., Ph.D.
A Foundation for Islamic Research and Education

All Rights Reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior
permission of the publisher except for the brief quotations in
critical reviews or articles.
Cover photograph by courtesy of Truls Tiller; taken at Ullsfjorden, Norway,

on Dec. 30, 2011.
All quotations and interpretations of the Quran are based on Ghamidi
(2018a) and Islahi (2009).
With names of prophets, a Muslim reader is expected to consider a prayer

like ‫ صىل هللا عليه وسمل‬or ‫علهيم السالم‬/‫( عليه‬peace be upon him/them) implicit in the
text. A non-Muslim reader may read the title ‘Prophet(s)’ as ‘the acclaimed
Prophet(s)’.
Publisher: Al-Mawrid
Printer: Fine Printers
1st Edition: July 2019
Price
ISBN: 978-969-681-026-1
Address: P.O. Box 5185, Lahore, Pakistan
www.al-mawrid.org info@al-mawrid.org
Contents
Preface 9
Introduction 11
In search of ultimate answers: metaphysics, religion, and
science 11
The limits of science 13
The blind following of scientists is no less hazardous 15
Following where reason and evidence lead 18
A probe into Stephen W. Hawking’s Godless cosmology 19
1. What is a law of nature? 22
Prevalent definition in science 22
Definition of The Grand Design (TGD) 23
Governing laws 24
The term ‘laws of nature/science’ is misleading. 25
No external laws, but inherent powers of particulars ‘governing’
their individual and collaborative behaviours/effects 26
2. Do fixed laws leave any room for human free will and
God’s intervention (miracles) in the universe? 29
Scientific determinism and free will 30
From laws to scientific determinism 30
No human being or society can function without a firm belief in
free will. 31
Naturalism and religion on evolution and free will [reductive/non-
reductive physicalism] 33
Rejection or acceptance of free will depends on one’s worldview,
not science 38
Divinely-integrated dualism 41
Cartesian dualism 43
Religious determinism 46
Miracles 47
Have regularities in nature rendered God’s intervention in the
universe (miracles) impossible? 47
Miracles and their purpose 49
3. Where do laws come from? 51
Fundamental laws: a consequence of M-theory 52
M-theory allowing for 10500 universes ≠ Presence of 10500
universes [many-worlds interpretation] 54
The law of gravity – a consequence of M-theory? 55
4. How could quantum theory and the law of gravity
necessitate a universe out of nothing? 59
Spontaneous emergence of the universe out of nothing [quantum
fluctuations; virtual particles] 60
The law of gravity necessitating the formation of matter 61
Negative and positive energies 63
Gravity, inflation, and the spontaneous creation of matter
[repulsive gravity; free-lunch/zero-energy hypothesis] 65
Quantum vacuum is manifestly not nothing! 69
Has physics rendered creatio ex nihilo impossible? [Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle] 71
‘Nothing’, once again, turns out to be something! [pre-existing
spacetime and the repulsive-gravity material] 72
5. Is it time to celebrate/mourn a personal God’s death? 77
Model-dependent realism 78
Model-dependent realism leaves no room for truth or ontological
claims, such as ‘God does or does not exist’. 80
Are laws self-explanatory? 82
God or the multiverse? 85
Why is there something rather than nothing? 90
It’s the question of potential! [inherent potentials of spacetime and
primitive energy] 91
A desperate measure to get rid of God [levels of explanation;
material cause; formal cause; efficient cause; final cause] 94
Does the ‘no boundary condition’ render God unnecessary?
[atemporal act of creation] 96
Who created God? [‘atheistic’ anthropomorphism; self-explanation] 99
Conclusion [God, cosmological evolution, and that by natural
selection] 102
Epilogue: God and His Grand Scheme 108
The Meaning of it All 109
A petty purpose of a great God? 111
Judgement – an objectionable idea? 111
Eternal retribution? 112
An unjust accountability? 116
If there is a God, why is He hiding from us? 120
The Problem of Evil 122
The Quest for truth 136
Bibliography 138
To Ellinor, Harris, Aléa, Ibrahim, Ayaan, Aden, Hana, Zamad,
Angelina, Imaan, Adam, Amina, Sophia, and all those young
ones who will, sooner or later, ponder upon ultimate
questions of life
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Sajid Shahbaz

Khan (aka Sajid Hameed) for their readily available guidance,
valuable input, and constructive advice.
I must thank Dr. Rani Lill Anjum and Dr. Fredrik Andersen
(Norwegian University of Life Sciences) for inspiring me to do
philosophy, encouraging me to start drafting the present
work as a term-paper in their philosophy course, providing
useful literature, interesting discussions, and a very happy
time together.
My thanks are also due to my wife, Selina Köhr, for her
encouragement and support, despite my philosophical
wanderings, absent-mindedness, and lack of response.
Finally, I must show gratitude to Al-Mawrid, Pakistan, for
funding and publishing this work. My special thanks are due
to Dr. Aamer Abdullah, Jawad Ahmed Ghamidi, Azhar Ameer,
Hasnain Ashraf, Muhammad Mushtaq, and Azeem Ayub.
Preface
‘Temperate, sincere, and intelligent inquiry and discussion

are only to be dreaded by the advocates of error. The truth
need not fear them.’
James Rush
Provisions of the Last Will and Testament of Dr. James Rush (1869), 13
A rrogance – presupposing that all with a different

viewpoint to ours are simpletons or wrong, ego-
satisfaction – ridiculing stereotypes of an opposing
school-of-thought, self-deception – blind faith or evading the
evidence opposing our views, self-consolation – getting false
reassurance by the like-minded, submission to in vogue
views in the name of modernity, and know-it-all disposition
after a superficial survey of our opponents’ views,
unfortunately, are still ubiquitous attitudes of so-called
seekers and bearers of truth in the modern world. Our topic
here – the all-important theism and atheism1 discussion – is
no exception to this, even at the academic level. This short
book is written to urge both the camps to listen to each other
with due respect, follow evidence and one another’s
arguments to conclusions, engage in a constructive debate,
and approach this disagreement in a rational and academic
manner.
Although I exclusively belong to one of the two camps, I have
tried to sincerely understand arguments of both sides and
present them as impartially and plainly as I could. To
1
Despite nuances of meaning, the terms ‘atheism’ and ‘naturalism’
will be synonymously used in the text.
9
A Critical Review of Stephen Hawking's Godless Universe
represent the naturalistic worldview, Stephen Hawking’s

narrative is used, as it is his Godless universe we intend to
explore here. Surely, not all naturalists endorse all of
Hawking’s views, so this book by no means represents all
major views within naturalism. The same goes for theism.
In accepting or rejecting a view or drawing my own
conclusions, I have tried my best to listen to the voice of my
conscience and follow reason and evidence. I hope this
humble attempt will pave the way for a small step forward in
our quest for knowledge, truth, and enlightenment.
Junaid Hassan
Moss, Norway
2018
10
Introduction
‘There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon

himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare […]
that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all
questions worth asking, and that questions which do not
admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or
“pseudo-questions” that only simpletons ask and only the
gullible profess to be able to answer.’
Peter B. Medawar, Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine (1960)
Advice to a Young Scientist (1979), 31
‘The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by

its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having
to do with first and last things – questions such as “How did
everything begin?”; “What are we all here for?”; “What is the
point of living?” […] It is not to science, therefore, but to
metaphysics, imaginative literature, or religion that we must
turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last
things.’
Peter B. Medawar
The Limits of Science (1984), 59-60
In search of ultimate answers: metaphysics,

religion, and science
T heoretical contributions of science, particularly in

biology and physics,2 have prompted many scientists to
directly or indirectly make their way into the realm of
2
For instance, the theory of evolution and the multiverse theory,
respectively
11
religion and philosophy. With immense intellectual and

technological success of science in the physical world, we are
now lured to set hopes on scientists, instead of philosophers
or theologians, to unravel metaphysical3 mysteries of the
3
Metaphysics, a major branch of philosophy, may be understood
by comparing its scope and methodology with that of physics.
Concerning scope, metaphysics deals with ultimate questions,
whereas physics typically deals with practical questions, avoiding
the ultimate. For example, the metaphysician may ask if there really
exists a world around us, or it is something like a virtual reality
created by our minds or by some being(s) in control of our minds.
The physicist, in contrast, would take the external world as given
and start exploring it with whatever means available, typically
asking questions like these: What are the fundamental forces
operating in the universe? What makes up the material universe?
How do ships float on the water surface? Why is it easier to walk
downhill than uphill? How do natural systems work?
Regarding the methodology, the metaphysician uses logic and
reasoning to reach a conclusion. Physicists do the same but, in
addition, pay special attention to observation and experimentation
to gain knowledge. For example, based on reason, Aristotle – the
father of metaphysics – postulated that objects fall at speed
proportional to their mass. After almost 2000 years, however, Galileo
– the father of modern science/physics – thought of an experiment,
which ultimately falsified Aristotle’s hypothesis. In metaphysics, such
experimentation – the hallmark of physics – is not undertaken. That
is why those mathematical proofs or (rational) hypotheses of
theoretical physics that lack empirical evidence (observation and
experimentation) are often compared with metaphysics. E = m × c2
was such a mathematical proof when proposed by Einstein in 1905,
but experimental physics has accumulated so much evidence for it to
date that it is now regarded a scientific reality. For a very short and
useful overview, see Spitzer, Robert. “What is the difference
12
Introduction
universe as well. We are keen to know what scientists have

to say about ultimate questions of life pertaining to the
existence of God, ultimate cause of the universe, human
soul/mind, purpose of life, determinism/free will, eternity,
resurrection, true nature of reality, and so on. ‘Philosophy is
dead,’ claims Stephen Hawking. ‘Philosophy has not kept up
with modern developments in science, particularly physics.
Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery
in our quest of knowledge.’ (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 5)
Caution must be taken here for, at least, two reasons:
1. The limits of science
Great achievements of science in the physical world is no
guarantee of its success in the metaphysical world, too.
Scientific method4 appears to be inherently inadequate to
answer metaphysical questions5, such as whether our senses
between metaphysics and physics, and what are the limits of each?”
2016. Available from:
www.magiscenter.com/difference-between-metaphysics-physics-
limit
4
‘Contrary to popular impression, there is no one agreed scientific
method, though certain elements crop up regularly in attempts to
describe what “scientific” activity involves: hypothesis, experiment,
data, evidence, modified hypothesis, theory, prediction,
explanation, and so on.’ (Lennox 2009, 32) For a typical description
of scientific method, see Bradford, Alina. “What Is Science?” 2017.
Available from:
www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
5
One may argue that it cannot be said about all metaphysical
questions; for instance, theoretical together with experimental
physics has provided insights into or given useful directions to
13
and scientific instruments reveal the real picture of reality

(See Medawar 1985). It seems extremely implausible, if not
impossible, to design an experiment to confirm or falsify this.
Thus, Hawking and Mlodinow (2010, 42) write:
‘How do we know we are not just characters in a computer-
generated soap opera? If we lived in a synthetic imaginary
world, events would not necessarily have any logic or
consistency or obey any laws. The aliens in control might find
it more interesting or amusing to see our reactions, for
example, if the full moon split in half. […] But if the aliens did
enforce consistent laws, there is no way we could tell there
was another reality behind the simulated one.’
Similarly, questions of morality – without which no human
or, at least, humanly life can be imagined – are beyond the
scope of science, such as whether or not murder, rape, or
violence is evil; or truth, justice, or faithfulness are to be
cherished. Albert Einstein made this point with utmost clarity
when he said the following, as quoted by one of his close
colleagues, Max Jammer (2002, 69):
‘Einstein declared that our moral judgements, or sense of
beauty, and religious instincts are “tributary forms in helping
the reasoning faculty towards its highest achievements. You
are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but
you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations
of morality." Einstein proceeded to point out that science
cannot form a base for morality: "every attempt to reduce
approach metaphysical questions about, e.g., the reality of time

and space. Those sceptics, however, would not agree who do not
trust our senses, instruments, and reasoning as sources of
authentic knowledge.
14
Introduction
ethics to scientific formulae must fail".’

Richard Feynman (2005, 33 & 43), Nobel Laureate in Physics
(1965), also expressed a similar view when he argued that
‘the sciences do not directly teach good or bad’, and that
‘ethical values lie outside the scientific realm’.
However, the inability of science to answer ultimate
questions pertaining to metaphysics, purpose, morality, and
so forth does not undermine it. Rather, it only reminds us of
the scope and limits of science. Medawar (1984, xiii)
elegantly illustrated this point as follows:
‘Science is a great and glorious enterprise – the most
successful, I argue, that human beings have ever engaged in.
To reproach it for its inability to answer all the questions we
should like to put to it is no more sensible than to reproach a
railway locomotive for not flying or, in general, not
performing any other operation for which it was not
designed.’
2. The blind following of scientists is no less hazardous
We must not forget that when Greek philosophy ruled the
world, we enthusiastically placed our faith in philosophers to
lead our way, so much so that even such propositions gained
currency: ‘Males have more teeth than females in case of
men, sheep, goats, and swine.’ Similarly, most of us
submitted our will to that of the clergy during the so-called
‘age of faith’6. Those heroes of ours now seem outdated and
defeated, at least, to many of us. Scientists are our new
6
I.e., the period of medieval civilisation from 325 to 1300 AD. It is
named so by the historian William J. Durant (1950) because of the
extraordinary rise of Christianity and Islam during it.
15
superheroes. Surely, they deserve to be so, but we must be

careful not to start, so to speak, hallowing, idolising,
idealising, or following them blindly, as is commonplace in
the so-called ‘celebrity’ and ‘popular culture’. The hazard
here is twofold:
First, when scientists make science-based claims, we must be
aware that not all science comes with the same credibility
and authority. For example, gene mutation and evolution
within similar species (sometimes called “microevolution”) is
an observable, repeatable, and testable phenomenon, but no
one has ever observed or replicated the evolution of, for
instance, fish into reptiles or reptiles into mammals
(sometimes called “macroevolution”); the idea is based on
inference from indirect observations. Regarding more acute
cases in scientific disciplines like evolutionary psychology,
the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne7 (2000) warns:
‘Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse
theory8 and speculation. […] Depression, for example, is seen
7
Emeritus Professor at University of Chicago
8
In science, the word ‘theory’ is typically used for such an
explanation or description of a phenomenon that has been
substantiated by experimentation, data, and evidence. For
example, ‘diseases are caused by microorganisms’ was merely a
hypothesis once, which became a theory subsequent to the
accumulation of empirical evidence for it.
In theoretical physics, however, ‘theory’ is used for an interrelated
set of mathematically driven rules and notions (hypotheses),
whether or not these hypotheses are substantiated by observation
and experimentation. For example, Einstein’s special theory of
relativity, which gives us the rule E = m × c2, is deservedly called a
theory, for it is backed by rich empirical evidence. But the multiverse
16
Introduction
as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve

our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence
enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe.
Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology
is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby
underbelly.
But the public can be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary
biology is equivalent to evolutionary psychology.’
Second, as the Oxford mathematician John Lennox (2011, 9)
puts it, ‘Not all statements by scientists are statements of
science, and so do not carry the authority of authentic science
even though such authority is often erroneously ascribed to
them.’ Regarding philosophical statements of scientists, we
must not forget Einstein’s (1936, 349) remark: ‘It has often
been said, and certainly not without justification, that the
man of science is a poor philosopher.’ However absurd it may
sound, even prestigious scientists are often found guilty of
elementary philosophical and logical fallacies, as we shall
soon see. Furthermore, scientists (especially contemporary
ones) often disregard or are found unaware of the fact that,
like all other humans, they carry a priori beliefs, preconceived
theories, metaphysical commitments, and philosophical
worldviews, even while doing science. The irony here is that
the scientific method itself is based on philosophical
presumptions, not science. In short, as scientists9 enter a
theory, string theory, M-theory, supersymmetry theory, and so on

are also called so, despite lacking evidence.
9
Such general statements by no means apply to all scientists.
Einstein and some other men we just quoted were also, after all,
scientists.
17
philosophical discussion, like that of theism/atheism, such

philosophical shortcomings immediately start to surface.
Lennox (2011, 32), therefore, warns:
‘Nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world-
famous scientists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of
such [philosophical] statements [of scientists] is the fact that
they are made by scientists; and the general public, not
surprisingly, assumes that they are statements of science and
takes them on authority. That is why it is important to point
out that they are not statements of science, and any
statement, whether made by a scientist or not, should be
open to logical analysis. Immense prestige and authority does
not compensate for faulty logic.’
Following where reason and evidence lead

The upshot of the preceding discussion is that, rather than
blindly following a celebrated prophet, spiritual leader,
philosopher, or scientist, we ought to always follow our
conscience, reasoning, and evidence, if it is truth we are
after. Regarding our topic, this proposition implies that one
must be able to follow scientific, philosophical, religious,
naturalistic, and historical evidence/arguments to their
conclusions. That is not straightforward. For one, concepts
and theories in all branches of knowledge have become
increasingly complex, specialised, and difficult to grasp for
nonexperts. Furthermore, we often find interpretational and
other differences among experts, so much that even the
same evidence sometimes leads them to different
conclusions. The way forward, therefore, is to adequately
decode specialised knowledge for nonexperts and make
plain any disagreements among the experts. Only then can
18
Introduction
people be empowered to rationally decide for themselves.

The present work was undertaken with this aim in view.
A probe into Stephen W. Hawking’s Godless cosmology
As for naturalism/theism debate in view of modern science,
many experts have attempted to produce explanatory
literature for laypersons. The late Stephen Hawking (1942–
2018) is among them, one of the most popular scientists, a
brilliant theoretical physicist, and an epitome of fortitude in
face of debilitating motor neuron disease. In his last
complete book The Grand Design (TGD), co-authored with
Leonard Mlodinow10, he specified some ultimate questions
of humankind and set out to answer them in light of modern
science, including his own research. In doing so, he
challenged some fundamental traditional concepts like that
of a personal God, His intervention in the universe, human
free will, and philosophical realism.
TGD’s central conclusions are based on mind-boggling
concepts from theoretical physics. These concepts are
cursorily explained in the text, probably because TGD is a
popular-science book and a general audience might not be
too interested in details. But the devil, as they say, lies in the
details. Here, therefore, I first interpreted TGD’s narrative,
using helpful illustrations and explanations from carefully
chosen academic resources. Considering that, this book may
be used as a short guide to Hawking’s cosmology. Then, I
critically analysed the reasoning, evidence, theories, and
conclusions of TGD, using works of some eminent
theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, and physicists.
10
Ph.D., theoretical physics
19
The second exercise was necessary because, first, as the

aphorism goes, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence – and such evidence, I add, demands extraordinary
scrutiny. Second, Hawking was not an expert of all the
scientific, philosophical, and religious areas he touched upon.
Even if he were, history shows that greatest of experts can
falter. Third, a good part of the theoretical work in physics
upon which TGD’s bold claims are based is by no means as well
established as, say, Einstein’s theory of relativity or even the
big bang theory. It is still metaphysics rather than physics in
that it awaits empirical evidence. More so, it seems rather
humanly impossible, as we shall see, to think of experiments
which could verify or falsify such work. Fourth, the
extrapolations of TGD from the well-established theoretical
physics are debatable, to say the least. Thus, I felt compelled
to not only tell Hawking’s part of the story but of those
specialists, too, who disagree with him. I hope this exercise
would facilitate my readers to adequately explore both sides
of the argument and draw informed conclusions.
To represent the religious discourse, I have turned to the
Quran. That is because out of Abrahamic Scriptures –
believed to be revealed by God – it is the only book whose
historical authenticity, at least, is beyond doubt. It is
transmitted through the most reliable mode of historical
transmission: unanimous consent of and continuous,
verbatim mass-transmission by all generations of Muslims,
since Prophet Muhammad (Ghamidi 2018b, 158 and Saleem
2012). No disrespect is intended for Judeo-Christian
Scriptures. I have also barred myself from using the Hadith
20
Introduction
literature11 from among the key Islamic texts, for it is

historically transmitted by individuals. Such transmission, no
matter how careful, always carries an element of doubt.
Coming back to TGD (180), its main conclusion is succinctly
spelled out like this: ‘Because there is a law like gravity, the
universe can and will create itself from nothing.’ This
conclusion raises several important questions with direct or
indirect implications for theism/atheism debate. These
questions may be summarised as follows:
1. What is a law of nature?
2. Do fixed laws leave any room for human free will and
God’s intervention (miracles) in the universe?
3. Where do laws come from?
4. How could the law of gravity necessitate a universe out
of nothing?
5. Is it time to celebrate/mourn a personal God’s death?
Each of these questions constitutes a chapter in this book. In
each chapter, TGD’s answer is first presented and elaborated
upon, followed by a critical commentary on it taking aboard
works and views of other experts, reason, and evidence.
Let’s fasten our seatbelts to embark upon this challenging
but fascinating journey now!
11
Except at a couple of places, where it corroborated the Quran or
explicated something implicitly alluded therein.
21
‘[I]t is a perversion of language to assign any law as the

efficient, operative cause of anything. A law presupposes an
agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent
proceeds; it implies a power, for it is the order according to
which that power acts. Without this agent, without this
power, which are both distinct from itself, the “law” does
nothing; is nothing.’
William Paley
“Natural theology.” The Works of William Paley (1838), 157
T
his question may seem irrelevant to our topic of
discussion, but it has such profound implications for
atheism/theism discussion that without an explicit
answer thereof, this discussion will always remain
prone to confusion and misunderstanding. The concepts
discussed in this chapter will be repeatedly referred to,
expounded upon, and used to draw important conclusions in
the chapters to follow.
TGD’s (The Grand Design) Position

Prevalent definition in science
TGD (27-28) says that most scientists today take a law of
nature as a rule derived from an observed regularity. Based
on this understanding, ‘the sun rises in the east,’ for example,
is a candidate for a law because it is a rule derived from the
regular rising of the sun in the east, witnessed for thousands
of years without exception. Because a law consistently holds,
it is expected to provide predictions; for example, we predict
on the daily basis that, ceteris paribus, the sun will rise in the
22
east tomorrow. TGD further qualifies the definition of laws as

follows.
Definition of TGD
TGD (28-29) says that all observed regularities cannot be put
into the category of laws. Seemingly, it says so in the wake of
the problem of induction12. A law, it argues, is more than just
12
Induction is a form of reasoning in which a generalisation is
inferred based on a few or many observations that support, but do
not necessarily guarantee that generalisation. For example, after
seeing many miserly people from a certain country, one can reach
an inductive generalisation that all people of that country are
misers. In science, induction may go somewhat like this:
Premises
A liquid x1 evaporated when heated at 1000 °C at times t1, t2, t3…
.
.
.
A liquid xn evaporated when heated at 1000 °C at times tn1, tn2, tn3…
Conclusion
All liquids evaporate on heating.
The above premises are actually a set of observational statements
that are generalised in the form of a law in the conclusion. The
premises do not necessarily lead to the conclusion because only
some liquids are regularly observed to evaporate at 1000 °C, but
the conclusion talks about all liquids. Since there are countless
kinds of liquids (and even more are possible through novel
chemical reactions), we cannot rule out that there may exist one
that would not evaporate at this temperature. Similarly, a liquid
which has been repeatedly observed in various laboratory settings
to evaporate at 1000 °C may not do so under some conditions not
23
a description of what is commonly observed to happen, for it

is based on unavoidable or necessary regularity, such as ‘all
uranium-235 spheres are less than a mile in diameter’. The
statement is not based on induction or mere observations,
but on the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon
that if a uranium-235 sphere approaches a diameter
exceeding ~6 inches, it will inevitably explode with a nuclear
explosion13.
TGD, however, accepts Newton’s laws of motion, although
they need to be modified for objects moving at a speed
approaching that of light. That is because these laws
consistently hold in our everyday world, where people,
trains, aeroplanes, or the like do not move at the speed of
light. As per TGD’s definition, therefore, a law must precisely
or approximately hold universally or, at least, ‘under a
stipulated set of conditions’.
Finally, TGD reminds that a law generally exists as part of a
system of interrelated laws and that in contemporary
science, laws are generally expressed in the language of
mathematics.
Governing laws
At several places, TGD14 talks about natural laws governing
the universe, which ‘is to say, its behavior can be modelled’
(i.e., mathematically expressed). To elucidate the point, let
yet tested.
13
In philosophy, the view that such a physical necessity is a
property of natural laws is termed ‘nomological’ or ‘nomic
necessity’.
14
For example, see p. 32, 54, 58, 72, 87, 134, 171, and 181.
24
us consider, for instance, Boyle’s law, which can be simply

put like this: Under constant temperature, the pressure an
ideal gas exerts on the walls of its container decreases
proportionally with increase in the volume of the container
(expansion of the gas). Mathematically, Boyle’s law can be
modelled as P = k/V, where P is the pressure of a gas, V
volume, and k is a constant equal to the product of volume
and pressure. Once we have established this law or
mathematical model through appropriate means, we can say
that a gas will obey or be governed by this law under the
stated conditions.
Commentary
The term ‘laws of nature/science’ is misleading.
The problem with this term is that it creates a misleading
picture in one’s mind as if there are powerless passive
particulars15 in the universe, which are controlled and
governed by laws external to them (See Mumford 2004, 204).
The problem worsens when, for example, TGD (8-9) says that
out of nothing ‘multiple universes arise naturally from
physical law’ or another eminent physicist says (as quoted by
Lennox 2011, 41) regarding the origin of the universe and life
that ‘for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of
mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these
things into being’. Such discourses seem to presume that
laws existed when there was nothing, with powers to bring
into existence everything. To make plain flaws of such
presumptions, we need to consider an alternative view to
15
‘Particulars’ is used synonymously here with ‘objects’, ‘existents’,
or ‘entities’.
25
that of laws, namely ‘lawlessness’.

No external laws, but inherent powers of particulars
‘governing’ their individual and collaborative behaviours or
effects
Rather than invoking the rule of (external) law, Stephen
Mumford16 in his book Laws in Nature (2004) correctly traces
regularities or necessities17 in nature to tendencies,
capacities, or causal powers in action, which particulars in the
universe inherently possess.18
To illustrate this view, let us turn to Boyle’s law again. It is an
inherent power of gas molecules to diffuse away from each
other, and it is an inherent power of a solid material, of which
gas containers are typically made, to resist anything trying to
diffuse through it. Thus, any gas molecules in a container will
necessarily hit the walls of the container and, thereby,
produce force per unit area, i.e., pressure. Suppose a
container with gas having pressure = 5 newton per each
square meter (m2), where the total area of the container = 20
m2. If we increase the volume of the container, its area will
concurrently increase too. Suppose an increase in the
volume, such that the internal area of the container increases
16
Professor of Metaphysics and Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the
University of Nottingham
17
That is, something necessarily causing another, as a uranium
sphere approaching a diameter of roughly 6 inches necessarily
causes an explosion.
18
Mumford, however, is not the first one to propose this idea. For
a brief and well-articulated summary of this view and an overview
of other useful resources, see Chalmers 1999, 217-221 & 225.
26
from 20 to 40 m2. Now if everything else remains constant,

the pressure of 5 newton per 1 m2 of total area = 20 m2 will
necessarily reduce to 2.5 newton per 1 m2 of total area = 40
m2. This negative relationship between pressure and volume
of gas is what Boyle’s law describes. To say, then, that Boyle’s
law governs the behaviour of gas or gas obeys it can be
grossly misleading. Boyle’s law, rather, is only a description
of how gas is predisposed to behave due to its inherent
powers. Hence, it would be erroneous to assume that Boyle’s
law could exist prior to the existence of gas itself and even
more erroneous to assume that it could, somehow, create
gas.
Same is true for all other laws. The so-called ‘laws of nature’
are nothing but descriptions of certain consistent behaviours,
coactions, or phenomena that particulars in the universe are
predisposed to produce due to their inherent tendencies,
capacities, or causal powers. Since these powers are
dispositions or properties, there is no question of them (what
to speak of laws) without a prior existence of particulars
(essentially, matter, energy19 and/or space). So, for a law to
be there, there has to be three things first: 1) a particular
with 2) consistent power(s), producing 3) a fixed behaviour
19
Expressions like ‘matter/energy/space’ are used throughout the
text to refer to the entities that the universe is made up of. Strictly
speaking, such usage is problematic, but I have persisted with it for
it simply and readily conveys the message for our purposes. For
details, see Strassler, Matt. “Matter and Energy: A
False Dichotomy” 2012. Available from:
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-
basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-
dichotomy/
27
or outcome (regularity); to describe this regularity,

eventually, a law can be formulated (See Paley’s quote at the
opening of this chapter).
Next, we shall turn to the problem of free will and miracles,
and see how they are thwarted by fixed laws in Hawking’s
universe.
28
2. Do fixed laws leave any
room for human free will &
God’s InterventIon (mIracles)
in the Universe?
‘It is extremely dangerous to fit physical theories to a priori

concepts, or to deduce too highly extrapolated philosophical
consequences from them. Any scientists have tried to make
determinism and complementarity the basis of conclusions
that seem to me weak and dangerous; for instance, they have
used Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to bolster up human
free will, though his principle, which applies exclusively to the
behavior of electrons and is the direct result of microphysical
measurement techniques, has nothing to do with human
freedom of choice. It is far safer and wiser that the physicist
remain on the solid ground of theoretical physics itself and
eschew the shifting sands of philosophic extrapolations.’
Louis Victor de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics (1929)
New Perspectives in Physics (1962), viii
‘For we say that all portents [miracles] are contrary to nature;

but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which
happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a
Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A
portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but
contrary to what we know as nature.’
St. Augustine
The City of God (2009), 700
29
C hapter 2 of TGD (The Grand Design) is devoted to the

discussion whether fixed laws can be suspended
through miracles and whether these laws leave any
room for free will. Here, after presenting TGD’s view, we shall
first discuss the problem of free will and then move on to
miracles.
TGD’s Position
Scientific determinism and free will

From laws to scientific determinism
TGD (30-34 & 171) assumes scientific determinism20: Since
science has discovered laws that hold without any exception,
‘there must be a complete set of laws’ that fully determines
how the universe would behave in the future from any time
onwards. This implies that there is no room for miracles –
God’s intervention in the universe – and free will.
As for free will, our bodies and brains (with all their thoughts)
are governed by biological processes. These processes,
ultimately, are governed by fixed laws of chemistry and
physics, compelling us to adhere to them. Therefore, ‘it
seems that we are no more than biological machines and that
free will is just an illusion’ (ibid., 32). As evidence against
Descartes’ (1596–1650) idea of a volitional agency (mind or
soul) within us which is not subjected to any physical law,
TGD (ibid.) refers to modern experiments in neuroscience. In
one such experiment, brain regions of patients going through
20
The idea is credited to the French mathematician and
philosopher Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827).
30
2. Fixed laws, free will, and miracles
awake brain-surgery were electrically stimulated. This

produced ‘desire’ in them to move various parts of their
bodies, including lips, and encouraged them to talk. Such
experiments indicate that ‘it is our physical brain, following
the known laws of science, that determines our [thoughts
and] actions, and not some agency [having free will] that
exists outside those laws’ (Brackets mine). Furthermore, if
there is anything like free will, TGD (31) asks its proponents
to show where it developed in the evolutionary tree.
Quantum physics (due to its probabilistic nature) seems to
weaken the idea that the universe is governed by laws with
fixed outcomes, hence challenging scientific determinism.
Regarding that, however, TGD (72) maintains that ‘it leads us
to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a
system at some time, the laws of nature determine the
probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than
determining the future and past with certainty’.
Commentary
No human being or society can function without a firm
belief in free will.
If there is no free will, courts of law have no right to punish
criminals, employers cannot hold their employees
responsible for their actions, a student cannot be
admonished for bad grades, Hitler cannot be blamed, and
Martin Luther King, Jr. does not deserve any appreciation.
The Quran (75:14-15) proclaims that ‘man [upon doing
something wrong] himself is a witness against his own soul,
no matter how many lame-excuses he may invent’. This claim
implies that we are well aware of what right/wrong is, and
31
we very well know that we can make choices with so much

freedom that we can be held responsible for them; there is a
‘judge’ within each of us, who appreciates us whenever we
do good and testifies against us whenever we choose to be
evil (Islahi 2009, vol. 9, 75-84). However, religion as well as
human societies do generally acknowledge that, sometimes,
a person’s will is impeded by circumstances beyond her
control, is not employed in her unintended actions, or
produces results other than that intended. Hence, the Quran
(24:33), for example, does not consider blameworthy (but
sympathises with) the bondwomen who were forced to
prostitution in the Arabian Peninsula. The Quran (5:89 &
33:5) also explicates that man will only be held answerable
for his wilful actions, not unintentional mistakes. Similarly,
our law-makers do not prescribe any punishment for crimes
committed by, for instance, minors and mentally disabled
persons. This is our collective wisdom regarding free will,
which all of us employ with full confidence in our daily lives.
As soon as anyone tries to challenge this wisdom verbally, he
necessarily creates a contradiction between his words and
actions. Thus, on the one hand, he denies free will but, on the
other, shows no hesitation whatsoever in blaming people for
their misconduct. Hawking, of course, was no exception to
this; hence, the Guardian (2017) reported that ‘Stephen
Hawking blames Tory politicians for damaging NHS’ (National
Health Service, the UK). But if the free will of these politicians
was just an illusion, how could they be blamed for the choices
they had made? The same goes for all murderers, terrorists,
rapists, child abusers, and other horrendous criminals. In real
life, however, no sane person will be ready to accept the
justification that it is not their fault, for just like robots all of
32
them were forced to ‘dance to their DNA’s music’, as

Dawkins21 (1995, 155) puts it. Thus, scepticism regarding
morality or free will has no place whatsoever in real life, but
only in philosophical wanderings or narratives against
religion (Ghamidi 2009).
Furthermore, the proposition that we have no control over
our thoughts and behaviours tends to take away what we
humans cherish the most: the will to take control of our evil
temptations and bad habits to evolve ourselves into better
individuals. But does this idea, after all, have sound
arguments and scientific evidence at its back? Let us have a
closer look.
Naturalism and religion on evolution and free will
TGD (31) is justified in asking where free will developed in the
evolutionary tree for, in a naturalistic/materialistic
worldview, it seems rather difficult to argue for free will. That
is because whether we are purely a physical product of the
so-called fixed laws of physics or probabilistic (lawless)
events, neither case makes us free in our decision-making
(Mumford and Anjum 2013, 45). For example, regardless if
pumping of adrenalin is an outcome of strict laws or certain
probabilistic processes, once pumped, it may incline us to be
violent. To overrule that inclination and act civilly, we need
willpower. But if our willpower, again, is at the mercy of fixed
laws or probabilistic behaviour of molecules that make us up,
then one has to wonder whether there really is any room for
free will! Such a view is called ‘reductive physicalism’ wherein
21
Prof. Richard Dawkins is a British evolutionary biologist, often
referred to as one of the ‘Four Horsemen of New Atheism’.
33
‘every mental property is identical with some physical

property’ or activity in the brain (Plantinga 2011, 18). Francis
Crick22 (1995, 3) put it this way: ‘“You,” your joys and your
sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of
personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the
behavior of a vast assembly of nerve-cells and their
associated molecules.’ Thus, all subjective perception in this
view (including free will, as TGD indicates) is an illusionary,
inconsequential by-product of physical events in the brain
(See Ward 2008, 142-145).
Compatible with naturalism, however, there is a view which
supports free will. In this view, called ‘non-reductive
physicalism’, ‘humans are purely physical beings, but
thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are higher-level
emergent properties of brains that have causal effects on the
complex physical systems that are human beings’ (Ward
2008, 156). Quoting a proponent of this view, Warren
Brown23 (2004), Ward (156-157) further writes, ‘“Conscious
decisions and will are real phenomena that are effective in
exerting a top–down (or whole–part) causal influence on the
neuro-physiological processes of the brain”. The patterns that
emerge from complex physical systems have genuine causal
powers. There are no new “entities” or physical forces
involved, but there are new “levels of causal efficacy”.’ In this
22
Prof. Francis H. C. Crick (1916–2004) was a British physicist,
molecular and neurobiologist; a joint Nobel Laureate (1962) for the
identification of DNA’s structure.
23
Warren S. Brown is a Christian; Director of the Lee Edward Travis
Research Institute (Clinical Psychology) and Professor of
Psychology at the Fuller Theological Seminary, California.
34
view, the higher-level properties of the brain (thoughts,

perceptions, and feelings) emerge naturally, with the
evolving complexity of the brain and integration of its
physical processes.
Religion’s viewpoint, by contrast, is as follows (Quran 32:7-9,
37:11 & 91:7-8): Human creation was initiated from the
constituents of sticky clay; thereafter, it went through
various evolutionary stages until a to-be-human animal was
accomplished, capable of reproduction. Like other animals,
this animal was conscious (aware of its existence) and
possessed instincts, emotions, will, and so on (Quran 32:8,
Ghamidi, pers. comm). Into two such animals (Adam/Eve),
God blew His subtle breath24, thereby, bestowing upon them
capacities which distinguished them from other animals.
These capacities include intellect, aesthetic sense, moral
sense, and the willpower to choose between right and wrong
(Islahi 2009, vol. 6, 161). This willpower (equipped with
reason and aesthetic/moral awareness) is such that it makes
humans responsible for their deeds and answerable to God
for the choices they make. The same divine breath is blown
into every human foetus, i.e., animal-form, in the mother’s
womb, which transforms it into a totally new creation i.e., a
human being (Quran 15:29 & 23:14, Ghamidi, pers. comm. &
Al-Bukhari 1997, vol. 4, no. 3208).25 (For details, see Hassan
24
‘Blowing of divine breath’ is a metaphor, used to communicate an
event whose reality is beyond human knowledge, reason, and
imagination (Ghamidi, pers. comm).
25
Here, I find it necessary to mention that the aim of religion is to
purify humans morally, so that they can render themselves eligible
for an eternal life with God (Quran 87:14-17). With this aim in view,
various scientific, philosophical, historical, and other topics are
35
2018b.)
According to religion, a human being, therefore, is a
combination of a 1) physical body, 2) basic animal-like
consciousness, and 3) mentally and spiritually-rich divinely-
infused consciousness. We do not know what 2, as such, is26
and how it is produced. Regarding 3, it is not explicated
whether it is infused as a distinct, non-physical being/person,
which overlays 2 and very much takes control of 1 & 2 (as in
Cartesian dualism). In this worldly life, such a mind would be
dependent upon the brain as much as, say, a driver is
dependent upon the car she must drive. At the time of death
(but not before that), the driver will be able to leave the car,
taking away all the experiences and memories of the drive
with her.
However, 3 might not be such a separate person, but only a
alluded to in the Quran to substantiate its argumentation.

Examples of such topics include prominent events in human
evolution and the means through which rich spiritual element is
bestowed upon humans, as mentioned above.
Such information is not accepted as a matter of blind faith, but after
establishing, through compelling evidence and reason, that there is
an immensely intelligent/wise God (a), who has communicated
with and guided His sentient creatures through revelation (b). (b
can be falsified, for example, by pointing out contradictions within
the Quran or between the Quran and scientific facts. a is difficult
to falsify but can be seriously challenged by showing that our
universe is self-explanatory and, thus, does not require God to
explain its existence.)
26
I.e., for example, a separate person (as in dualism) or an
emergent property of the physical nervous system (as in non-
reductive physicalism) etc.
36
part (although an integral one) necessarily requiring 1 & 2 to

form a human person. If so, then 3 would basically be
awareness/knowledge necessary to produce moral,
aesthetic, and intellectual capacities in the to-be-human
animal, already possessing 1 & 2. We cannot say with
certainty if this knowledge exists in physical or spiritual form
and how 1 & 2 relate to it. The ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘self’, or the ‘real
human being’ in this case is, practically speaking, the total
continuous, conscious experience of spiritually and
intellectually-rich human life in such an integrated form. This
experience is basically information, which we know can be
stored, transferred, expressed, and embodied in many ways.
So, resurrection or life after death – an important tenet of
religious worldview – does not pose a problem for this view.
To facilitate further discussion, we can refer to this view as
‘divinely-integrated dualism’27.
27
This view is similar to what is called ‘integrative dualism’, held by
two popular Anglican priests, the senior theoretical physicist John
Polkinghorne (2010, 41-43) and the Oxford theologian Keith Ward
(2008, 134-161). However, they view all of human consciousness
(i.e., 2 as well as 3) as an emergent reality, not a product of divine
intervention.
In non-reductive physicalism, too, all of consciousness (including
the experience of free will) is viewed as an emergent property of
the physical brain-activity. The difference, however, is that herein
this emergent property is not considered a ‘new entity or physical
force’, but only ‘a new level of causal efficacy’, as Brown (2004, 65)
puts it. In contrast, integrative dualism holds that ‘consciousness
and its contents, though generated by the physical brain, are
distinct kinds of existent entities’ (Ward 2008, 160). For divinely-
integrated dualism, we shall assume this latter view.
37
As for TGD’s question where free will developed in the

evolutionary tree, its answer according to both these views
will be that free will, at least as experienced by humans, is
not a product of evolution or any other natural process.
Considering the other products of evolution, i.e. animals28,
this answer seems plausible because the mental/spiritual
difference between animals and humans is so huge that
something additional and unique must take place to produce
humans.
Rejection or acceptance of free will depends on one’s
worldview, not science.
Dualism and divinely-integrated dualism are not in conflict
with science per se. It is not science alone, but science done
with or interpreted under naturalistic/materialistic
worldview that, by definition, makes any immaterial reality
unacceptable.
However, if dualism is true, science will have to deal with a
non-physical, subjective, immeasurable decision-maker
(mind) enclosed in our physical body. And if integrative or
divinely-integrated dualism is true, science will have to deal
with subjective spiritual/mental experience (mind), for
example, that of liking/disliking someone. But science can
only deal with observable, objective, measurable, and
testable phenomena. This implies that mind in both these
senses can hardly be the topic of scientific inquiry, just like
many other questions pertaining to, say, music, art,
28
Regarding the consciousness of animals, however, it is only a
speculation that it is a physical (reductive or non-reductive)
outcome of evolution. In fact, no one knows what it really is and
how it came/comes to be.
38
literature, or even the very philosophical assumptions on

which the scientific method is based (Ward 2008, 142). This,
however, does not imply that dualism is unnecessary or false,
or that mind in the sense of integrated consciousness is an
illusion.
Because it is inherently difficult for science-proper to deal
with subjective mental-experience, psychology – starting as
introspective psychology – turned out to be a futile exercise.
It had to be replaced by behavioural psychology because
behaviour can be publicly observed and tested, at least to
some extent. More recent fields, like cognitive psychology
and neuroscience, correlate the behaviour as well as
conscious experience (e.g., that of pain) to brain
functionality. Here, rather than publicly inaccessible
experience of pain itself, its corresponding observable and
measurable brain activity becomes the primary subject of
scientific inquiry (Ward 2008, 142-143 & 160).
Since scientists (because of the very nature of science) are
predisposed to explain things in physical terms, physicalism
naturally becomes the default position for most of them.
However, neuroscience, biological psychology, evolutionary
psychology, and related fields turn out to be intrinsically
difficult and highly controversial when it comes to the
problem of consciousness and free will.29 Firstly, it is a
daunting task to design an appropriate experiment to
confirm or falsify hypotheses regarding these. Secondly, for
29
For a quick overview of the controversies, see Wikipedia.
“Neuroscience of free will.” 2018. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuroscience_of_fre
e_will&oldid=858574065
39
some experiments, it becomes necessary to rely on

subjective statements/reports of the subjects, which
compromises objectivity. Thirdly, the experimental results
are prone to many interpretations, depending upon the
philosophical presumptions or perspective with which they
are viewed (i.e., naturalism, physicalism, dualism, and so on).
The evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne (2000), a Jewish-born
atheist, thus writes:
‘The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the
scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents
are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling,
including depression, homosexuality, religion, and
consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural
selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key – the only
key – that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse
theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not
fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves
concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test.
Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural
selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing,
reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction.
Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If
evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary
psychology is its flabby underbelly.
But the public can be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary
biology is equivalent to evolutionary psychology. Books by
Daniel Dennett, E. O. Wilson, and Steven Pinker have sold
briskly, and evolutionary psychology dominates the media
coverage of research on evolution. […] In view of the scientific
shakiness of much of the work, its popularity must rest partly
40
on some desire for a comprehensive "scientific" explanation

of human behavior. Evolutionary psychology satisfies the
postideological hunger for a totalistic explanation of human
life, for a theory of inevitability that will remove many of the
ambiguities and the uncertainties of emotional and moral
life.’
Next, we shall look into some typical science-based criticisms
levelled against divinely-integrated dualism and dualism,
respectively. We shall also look at some new empirical
findings that support these views and go against reductive
physicalism.
Divinely-integrated dualism
Some philosophers and neuroscientists claim that nothing
else is required to produce human consciousness except the
nervous system. Divinely integrated dualism would agree
because, in this view, our nervous system comes already
equipped with a spiritual/intellectual element. This element
is experienced, whereas its corresponding physical element
can be observed in the functional nervous system.
Here, one may claim that it is superfluous to believe that, to
achieve a person with moral/intellectual element, God
equips our physical being with some potential
awareness/knowledge (by means of divine breath). If this
claim were true, then human-like morality and reasoning
should have been there or could have been taught to, at
least, some animals, too. The non-existence of human-like
consciousness in animals with seemingly equally
sophisticated nervous systems points to the need of
something additional to achieve a human being – something
which is not an outcome of evolution that both humans and
41
animals have gone through (See Ghamidi 2012b).

More radically, reductive physicalists claim, like TGD, that our
consciousness is nothing more than physical events in the
brain and, thus, personal spiritual-experience (including that
of free will) is just an illusion. No matter how confidently such
assertions are made and how credible the asserter is, they
are at best hypotheses, which may not even be verifiable or
falsifiable. The brain is still very much a black-box, but such
melodramatic claims give an impression as if the brain is an
open book, science has unravelled what consciousness really
is, and how it is produced in the dead matter. None of this is
even remotely true. We, scientists, do not hesitate to label
others arrogant, but we should not forget to be a little
humble ourselves, too.
When TGD (32) says that ‘it seems that we are no more than
biological machines and that free will is just an illusion’, it
assumes that causation only goes one way, i.e., from the
brain (governed by fixed physical laws) to fixed thought and
behaviour. But there is ample evidence that causation goes
in the opposite direction too, i.e., from behaviour as well as
mental element to physical changes in the brain (See Ward
2008, 153-158). An example of this is the placebo effect,
known for ages. Recent studies have shown that it works
because ‘non-physical mental expectations’,
encouragement, or subjective meanings ‘translate into
bodily responses via real physical changes in the brain’
activity (See Andrews 2012, 257-259 and references
therein.)30
30
For a reductive physicalist’s explanation of the placebo effect,
see Yasushi 2013, 346-349. Like Yasushi, we also consider physical
42
Not only this, but the brain can be physically altered by

subjective mental activity. Mason et al. (2017), for example,
indicate that talk therapy, a thought-involving process used
to help manage various psychological disorders, works
because it alters the brain wiring. Similarly, evidence
accumulated over the past two decades shows that
meditation increases the brain’s grey-matter volume (E.g.,
see Hölzel et al. 2011).31 Such studies show that mental
events or activities are not merely an illusionary,
inconsequential by-product of physical events in the brain.
Quite the contrary, mental activities can not only physically
influence the brain but are capable of taking control of it.
Therefore, the experiment TGD has alluded to wherein the
electrical stimulation of brain regions produced ‘desire’ in the
subjects to move their body parts is half the story. In the full
version, a conscious brain may choose to reject that desire
by manipulating the brain activity.
Cartesian dualism
The empirical evidence discussed in the preceding paragraph
is compatible with both divinely-integrated dualism as well
mechanisms, working in response to the mental/conscious

element to produce results. However, what Yasushi does not and
cannot deny is – and here is our point – the case of mind over
matter, where subjective meaning or expectation (even if
generated by physical brain activity) feeds back to cause a physical
response. For an extremely interesting case clearly demonstrating
this, see Mr. Wright’s story on p. 342 in Yasushi’s article.
31
Comprehensive critical peer-evaluations of the positive studies
are available, confirming that meditation does induce structural
changes in the brain; see, e.g., Fox et al. 2016.
43
as dualism. Although it does not necessarily imply that

dualism is true, it clearly wards off a common criticism
against it that ‘there’s no possibility of something non-
physical like a soul affecting what happens at the physical
level’ (Law 2006, 69).
TGD’s (32) allusion to the electrical stimulation of brain
regions, producing ‘desire’ in the subjects to move certain
body-parts, does not have any implications for the Cartesian
mind or free will. That is simply because such a mind, if not
rejected a priori, can easily choose to follow or reject that
desire.
Rather than a mere desire, however, our brain is also known
to compel us to behave or act in a certain manner. For
example, consider obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD): A
psychological illness wherein the patients experience
persistent, unwanted, and uncontrollable thoughts
(obsessions). To cope with them and relieve the anxiety
caused therefrom, the patients are compelled to repetitively
perform certain mental/physical rituals or actions, for
instance, handwashing, double-checking things, or habitual
tics. According to biological theories (backed by evidence),
OCD is caused by imbalances in certain brain chemicals, other
physical abnormalities, or damage to the brain. Thus, all we
see is the physical brain at work, obstructing the free will of
OCD patients. Does this mean that mind is unnecessary or,
more so, non-existent? Not necessarily. That is because the
brain can be thought of as a screen on which mind’s ‘sight’
depends. As dirt, damage, too much sunlight, scratches, or
other issues with a vehicle’s windscreen may seriously hinder
the driver’s ability to see the road ahead, mind’s functions
can also be seriously hindered by problems with the brain
44
and its functions.

Some argue that after a brain injury, tumour, or the like,
people have been repeatedly observed to lose their mental
abilities, like memory or even moral awareness/control (See
Choi 2002), suggesting that the brain is all there is. A similar
analogy to that of a screen may help here as well, where we
can think of the brain as the information source for mind, just
like a computer serves as the source through which
information on the web becomes available to us. A damaged
or malfunctioning hardware or the software may make such
information inaccessible to us, but that obviously does not
negate our existence – the recipients of that information and
controllers of the computer. Similarly, damage to some brain
region making it impossible to, say, recollect a thought or
maintain moral sense, does not negate the existence of mind.
The analogy presented in the preceding paragraph is wrong
in the sense that a malfunctioning computer does not make
a person lose their mental abilities, but a problematic brain
can and does sometimes takes away all mental experience.
That is not surprising because in the dualistic view, as
mentioned earlier, mind or soul is incarcerated in the
physical body and cannot leave or function independent of
the brain, at least, in this worldly life. Moreover, for mind to
function properly and govern the body effectively, a healthy
brain is required. As for free will, this means that it may be
fully or partially impeded by an abnormal brain, as we saw in
the case of OCD. Such an observation, however, does not
falsify our collective wisdom regarding free will. That is
because, as indicated earlier, it is already acknowledged
therein that a person’s free will can, at times, be impeded or
is not even employed in certain actions, e.g., involuntary
45
ones. And, in such cases, our collective wisdom does not hold
anyone responsible for their actions.
It seems that science may not be able to falsify dualism (or
divinely-integrated dualism), but it can certainly show that
the idea is superfluous. That can be done by, for example,
achieving human-like consciousness in complex computers
or machines, as an emergent property. More than half a
century ago, practitioners of artificial intelligence thought
that it was an easy task, but so far even animal-like
consciousness has not been realised in machines.
To conclude, although neuroscience and related scientific
disciplines are highly controversial (at least regarding the
problem of consciousness and free will), modern science can
certainly correct many of Descartes’ false ideas regarding the
anatomy and physiology of the brain. But as for his principle
distinction between the body and mind (latter being the
bearer of free will), modern science as yet does not have a
verdict to pass (See Ward 2008, 142-161).
Religious determinism
Before discussing miracles, we should, perhaps, also touch
upon the idea referred to as religious determinism: because
God is omniscient (having knowledge of all future events),
everything is predetermined, and free will is just an illusion.
This argument does not hold water because knowing
something in advance is one thing and to impose something
on someone is another. If I somehow foresee a murder in,
say, a dream, how could my advance knowledge of the
murder impede the free will of the murderer? Similarly, what
God knows in advance is that we, employing our free will,
46
shall act in a certain way tomorrow.32

Why does God, then, not intervene and stop evil from
happening? So that we can freely exercise our will in this
fleeting world, such that the righteous can be separated from
wrongdoers based on concrete evidence. Then, God will
finally intervene and do justice between the two on the
Judgement Day: wrongdoers will meet an ill-fate after they
are left with no excuse to defend their crimes, and the
righteous will reap God’s eternal Kingdom of Heaven. In
other words, God is selecting individuals to inhabit His
eternal Paradise, based on such a scheme which is just,
objective, and indisputable.33 Such is the grand scheme of
God, disclosed by revealed religion.
Miracles
Have regularities in nature rendered God’s intervention in
the universe (miracles) impossible?
First, rather than adopting the misleading view of laws in
32
The problem of religious determinism can also be dealt with by
appealing to Boethian conception of God’s eternal (timeless)
cognition, discussed in Chapter 5 (No boundary condition). In that
view, it is denied that the past/future (or time) exists for God,
hence rendering the question of foreknowledge of people’s future
actions irrelevant. Here, we have not taken that route because
even if this question is supposed to be valid, it has a pretty
straightforward answer.
33
Certain things in this world, however, seem to be predetermined,
for instance, our time and place of birth, family, skin colour, natural
aptitudes, and so on, but for these, religion does not hold anyone
responsible (Ghamidi 2009).
47
nature, we should go back to Mumford’s (2004) view that

regularities in nature are an outcome of inherent
properties/causal powers of natural existents. When these
existents exert their specific powers on one another, a fixed
outcome (the so-called law) manifests. For instance, because
the earth is heavy due to its mass and the spacetime fabric
has the power to substantially warp in the presence of heavy
objects, the interaction of these powers necessitates a force
(gravity)34. This force, in turn, causes an apple to fall (through
warped space) towards the earth – a regularity which is said
to have inspired Newton to discover his law of gravity. This
implies that the space, the earth, and the apple are
predisposed to mutually produce a certain
behaviour/phenomenon, ceteris paribus (a law or regularity
– whatever we name it).
But how can such predisposition put any restriction
whatsoever on an agent to intervene in its manifestation and
stop the apple from falling? It simply cannot (Lennox 2011,
86-87). Thus, the idea that the so-called laws of nature can
somehow restrict an agent like God to intervene in the
universe is simply false. God should not only be able to
intervene but exploit those powers of things, too, that are
not yet discovered by our science.35
34
To visualise this idea based on Einstein's theory of general
relativity, visit http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/.
35
TGD (29-30) refers to Newton’s belief that God had to
periodically adjust the orbits of planets as a ‘miracle of a sort’. If
Newton were alive, I am sure he would have happily accepted
naiveté of his assumption and would have been even more
humbled to know that God works in much more sophisticated ways
48
Miracles and their purpose

Miracles, by definition, are exceptions (rare events). The
idea, however, is often misused by religious people. Francis
Collins36 (2007, 51-52) thus correctly warns that ‘the only
thing that will kill the possibility of miracles more quickly than
a committed materialism is the claiming of miracle status for
everyday events for which natural explanations are readily at
hand.’ Perhaps, it is this misuse to which many scientists
understandably show antipathy. If miracles begin to take
place daily, science would become difficult, if not
impossible.37
The Quran38 refers to miracles as ‘clear signs [from God]’ and
tells that they were performed by God or were given to His
messengers to achieve some extraordinary purposes:
For example, they helped certain messengers empirically
establish their veracity (Ghamidi 2018b, 135-138). That was
necessary because through such messengers, God set up
miniature days of judgement right in this world: This means
that after each of them delivered truth with such arguments
and evidence (including miracles) that none among its
receivers was left with any excuse to deny it, God’s
judgement came to pass. The enemies of God’s messenger –
than he anticipated.
36
A physician and geneticist, who led the Human Genome Project
to completion; currently Director of the National Institutes of
Health, USA
37
For a detailed discussion on science and miracles, see Lennox
2009, 193-206 and 2011, 81-95.
38
See 26:10-16, 28:30-32, & 54:3.
49
i.e., the enemies of reason, truth, and morality – received

humiliating punishment. Conversely, the messenger and his
followers – no matter how few, weak, or oppressed – were
bestowed with honour, salvation, and authority in the land
(For details, see Ghamidi 2018b, 49-51 & 169-178). Alluding
to this, the Quran (10:47) says:
‘[According to God’s law,] there is a messenger for every
community: when their messenger comes [before them], they
are judged with fairness, and no injustice is shown to them.’
The Quran, the Bible, and history reveal that God set up many
such miniature days of judgement by directly interfering in
this world and dealing with select communities according to
their moral conduct. The exercise was important in that it
substantiates the central claim of religion on a smaller scale,
i.e., the existence of a just God and the advent of one such
universal day – the Day of Judgement – for the entire
humankind.39
Similarly, another function of miracles, for example, was to
armour God’s messengers against their mighty and atrocious
addressees, like Pharaoh in the case of Moses. Miracles not
only shielded messengers from such despots, who would
have otherwise butchered them straightaway, but compelled
them to attend to their message (Ghamidi 2016b).
39
The last such miniature judgement took place on the Arabian
Peninsula in the seventh century AD, when the last messenger of
God Muhammad came to this world. This event is the topic of the
Quran, which unfolds its details before our eyes and invites us all
to witness God through the pages of established history.
50
‘It is a common rule in theoretical physics, one accepted by

many physicists, that anything not forbidden by the basic
laws of nature must take place.’
Isaac Asimov
“The ultimate speed limit.” Saturday Review of Sciences (8 Jul. 1972), 56
‘We have thus assigned to pure reason and experience their

places in a theoretical system of physics. The structure of the
system is the work of reason; the data of experience and their
mutual relations are to correspond exactly to consequences
in the theory40. In the possibility of such a representation lies
the sole value and justification of the whole system, and
especially of the concepts and fundamental principles which
underlie it. These latter, by the way, are free inventions of the
human intellect, which cannot be justified either by the
nature of that intellect or in any other fashion a priori.’
Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics (1921)
A lecture “On the Method of Theoretical Physics” at Oxford (10 Jun.
1933) Essays in Science (2011), 10
T he question is raised in Chapter 2 of TGD (The Grand

Design, 29), but the answer is deferred to later
chapters. As for the idea of God being the law-giver,
however, the question is followed by a quick comment that
40
The phrase is originally translated as ‘the empirical contents and
their mutual relations must find their representation in the
conclusions of the theory’. However, I have adopted a better
translation from Philosophy of Science, vol. 1, pp. 163-169, 1934.
51
it is merely ‘substituting one mystery for another’.
TGD’s Position
Fundamental laws: a consequence of M-theory
In the famous CNN talk-show Larry King Live (10th Sept.
2012)41 Stephen Hawking said, ‘Gravity and quantum theory
cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing.’
When asked how the law of gravity came into existence,
Hawking said, ‘Gravity is a consequence of M-theory, which is
the only possible unified theory. It is like saying why is 2 + 2 =
4?’
M-theory, according to TGD (8), is a set of mutually coherent
theories each of which can be successfully applied in limited
range of scenarios; whenever two or more of these theories
overlap to predict or describe the same phenomenon, they
mutually agree. TGD (165 & 181) claims that M-theory is ‘the
only candidate’ for the ‘theory of everything’: Einstein’s
dream theory ‘that would account for every detail of the
matter and forces we observe in nature’.
TGD (140-142) tells that M-theory, along with the three
dimensions of space, has seven additional space dimensions,
plus one of time. These extra dimensions, however, are not
visible because they are highly curled up on a scale too small
to be observed. The shape of these curved dimensions
‘determines both the values of physical quantities, such as the
charge on the electron, and the nature of the interactions
between elementary particles, that is, the forces of nature’.
41
Available from:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/transcripts/1009/10/lkl.01.html
52
In other words, laws of nature are determined by the shape

of the seven curled-up dimensions of space, sometimes
called the ‘internal space’ in contrast to the visible three-
dimensional space. ‘M-theory,’ says TGD (116-118), ‘has
solutions that allow for many different internal spaces,
perhaps as many as 10500, which means it allows for 10500
different universes, each with its own laws.’
TGD (58-83 & 135-136) goes on to claim that these many
universes actually exist. That is because, based on Richard
Feynman’s42 formulation and interpretation of quantum
theory, anything that can possibly take place will necessarily
take place in one of the parallelly existing universes
(multiverse). So, if M-theory is correct and it allows for 10500
different internal spaces, it implies that 10500 parallel
universes exist, each with a uniquely shaped internal space,
resulting in a unique set of laws. We are compelled to believe
this, no matter how outrageous it may sound, because it is
an implication of quantum theory, which ‘has passed every
experimental test to which it has ever been subjected’.
Commentary
Despite being highly speculative and severely criticised by
top-of-the-line physicists (See Lennox 2011, 51-56), let us
accept M-theory at face value for the sake of discussion.
42
Prof. Richard P. Feynman (1918–1988) was an American
theoretical physicist; a joint Nobel Laureate (1965) for his
fundamental contributions to quantum electrodynamics.
53
M-theory allowing for 10500 universes ≠ Presence of 10500

universes
As alluded to above, the idea of the multiverse is based on
one interpretation of quantum mechanical observations,
called ‘many-worlds interpretation’. Various other
interpretations exist that do not support the multiverse, and
which interpretation to choose seems like a matter of taste.
Nothing could be more pertinent here than the following
words of Richard Feynman (2017, 168):
‘[E]very theoretical physicist who is any good knows six or
seven different theoretical representations for exactly the
same physics. He knows that they are all equivalent, and that
nobody is ever going to be able to decide which one is right
at that level, but he keeps them in his head, hoping that they
will give him different ideas for guessing.’
So, hard quantum mechanical facts per se do not necessitate
belief in the multiverse. This implies that M-theory’s
allowance for 10500 universes can be treated like any other
mathematical model, which may or may not correspond with
the actual reality. The other day, for instance, I was solving a
mathematical equation for calculating concentration of a gas
in a liquid, and the equation predicted a positive as well as a
negative concentration. Any concentration obviously has to
be positive, and that was what I was looking for. But what
about the negative concentration? That solution was
meaningless. The same goes for M-theory’s solutions that
allow for 10500 different universes: they are nothing more
than science fiction unless backed by empirical evidence,
which is not yet there. The evidence for quantum theory is
not relevant to the multiverse hypothesis, for as mentioned
earlier, it is not a necessary consequence of quantum theory.
54
Let us listen to Einstein’s words once more (quoted in more

detail at the opening of this chapter):
‘[T]he data of experience and their mutual relations are to
correspond exactly to consequences in the theory. In the
possibility of such a representation lies the sole value and
justification of the whole system.’
When TGD (136) says that ‘many universes exist with many
different sets of physical laws’, one needs to be careful not to
take ‘existence’ in the literal sense. That is because TGD (45-
59) assumes ‘model-dependent realism’, which simply
means that our reality is at the mercy of models (world
picture and theories) created by our brains. These models
may or may not correspond with the actual reality, if any such
exists. So, in the strict sense, model-dependent realism does
not allow any ontological claims such as, ‘Universes exist!’
The correct statement, according to this view, would be
somewhat like this: Many universes exist in the model (M-
theory) of the model-reality created by our brains. (For more
on model-dependent realism, see Chapter 5.)
The law of gravity – a consequence of M-theory?
As we have seen, according to TGD, all fundamental laws of
our universe are a consequence of M-theory in that M-theory
postulates seven additional, hidden/internal dimensions of
space; the shape thereof determines behaviours/actions of
particulars, described by laws. So, when Hawking says,
‘Gravity is a consequence of M-theory,’ he means to say that
gravity is a consequence of the shape of the internal space.
That is why he equates the question of the origin of the law
of gravity to the arithmetic law 2 + 2 = 4. We cannot question
this law because it accurately describes and predicts what
55
happens in our universe if we add up a particular number of

things of the same kind. However, if someone would ask
about its origin, we can answer that it is a consequence of
what happens in the world around us, given that such a world
is there with things that can be added together.
To make matters clearer, imagine some animals locked up in
a cage. We can say that their freedom of movement, level of
happiness/sadness, or interaction with each other and the
environment etc. depends upon the design of the cage (a
causal power). But this is just a description of how things are
set up, not an explanation of the presence of the cage or the
animals with such behaviour that could be influenced by the
design of the cage. The same goes for M-theory’s description
of the shape of the internal space (a causal power) and its
effects on the individual or collaborative actions of
particulars, described by laws.
To take gravity specifically, it might be a consequence of the
coaction of the shape of the internal space (as M-theory
suggests) and other particulars (essentially, matter/energy)
present in the universe. But this obviously begs the question
where those particulars (space and matter/energy) came
from in the first place. Let us recall Hawking’s (2012; brackets
mine) answer, ‘Gravity and quantum theory cause universes
[including the one like ours, with space and matter/energy]
to be created spontaneously out of nothing.’
Hawking’s reasoning here seems to be circular and
contradicting what we have learnt so far about laws and
theories comprising those laws that they are written or
verbal descriptions of natural phenomena (See Fig. 1). This
obviously means that they cannot cause anything on their
own. ‘Newton's celebrated laws of motion,’ explains Lennox
56
(2011, 41), ‘never caused a pool ball to race across the green
baize table. That can only be done by people using a pool cue
and the action of their own muscles. The laws enable us to
analyse the motion, and to map the trajectory of the ball's
movement in the future (providing nothing external
interferes); but they are powerless to move the ball, let alone
bring it into existence.’ This means that the so-called laws do
not, in fact, exist in nature (Mumford 2004); what exist are
particulars with specific dispositions or powers, causing
regularities. These regularities can then be expressed as
mathematical laws (such as E = m × c2), which can become
part of theories (such as special relativity).
Fig. 1. Circular reasoning of TGD
But this sequence of events is turned on its head by

Hawking’s claim that the law of gravity and quantum theory
cause spontaneous creation of universes, out of nothing. Is
57
he simply wrong or are we missing something? To find the

answer, let us see how TGD and other experts explain this
interesting thesis.
58
4. How could Quantum
Theory and the law of
gravity necessitate a
universe out of nothing?
‘To him who is a discoverer in [theoretical physics], the

products of his imagination appear so necessary and natural
that he regards them, and would like to have them regarded
by others, not as creations of thought but as given realities.’
Albert Einstein
“On the Method of Theoretical Physics.” Essays in Science (2011), 10
‘We are in the habit of talking as if [laws] caused events to

happen; but they have never caused any event at all. The laws
of motion do not set billiard balls moving: they analyze the
motion after something else (say, a man with a cue […]) has
provided it. They produce no events: they state the pattern to
which every event – if only it can be induced to happen – must
conform, just as the use of arithmetic state the pattern to
which all transactions with money must conform – if only it
can get hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of
Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another,
what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe – the
incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true
history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the
laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real
money by simply doing sums. For every law, in the last resort,
says “If you have A, then you will get B”. But first catch your
A: the laws won't do it for you.’
C. S. Lewis
Miracles (1974), 93-94
59
TGD’s (The Grand Design) Position

Spontaneous emergence of the universe out of nothing
T
GD (139) suggests that ‘we are a product of quantum
fluctuations in the very early universe’. To understand
quantum fluctuations, we first need to understand
what a quantum vacuum is, which TGD (113) explains
as thus:
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle dictates that both the
position and the velocity of a particle cannot be measured
accurately at the same time. The more accurately one is
measured, the more uncertain the other becomes. The same
applies to the energy value of a field and its rate of change. But
empty space would violate this principle because its energy
value and the rate of change would simultaneously turn out to
be exactly zero. Thus, there cannot be any such thing in the
universe as completely empty space or, in other words,
nothing. However, the next closest thing to nothing is a tiny
‘speck’ of space in a state of minimum or lowest possible
energy, called the ‘quantum vacuum state’. In this state, the
space is unstable, meaning that within it ‘particles and fields
quiver in and out of existence’ on a scale as small as the space
between the three quarks that make up a proton. The
phenomenon is called ‘vacuum/quantum fluctuations’, and
the particles spontaneously popping into existence are called
‘virtual particles’43.
TGD (136-137) argues that since the universe started on an
extremely tiny/quantum scale, it is reasonable to assume that
43
Virtual particles cannot be observed, but their effects can be very
precisely measured.
60
4. Quantum theory, gravity, and spontaneous creation
it spontaneously emerged as an infinitesimal particle out of a

quantum vacuum (or, essentially, out of nothing) and, then,
underwent inflationary expansion. Here, the word ‘particle’
may create a false picture of the early universe in one’s mind.
So, it needs to be clarified that what abruptly came into
existence because of a quantum mechanism was actually
spacetime (or, simply, space). This space – the early universe –
‘might typically be 10-33 cm in size’ and was, virtually, void of
matter (Davies 1990, 214-215).
The law of gravity necessitating the formation of matter
TGD (179-181) argues that ‘the energy of an isolated body (of
matter) surrounded by empty space is positive,’ which means
that energy is required to create a body. But energy of a
closed system is a ‘conserved’ (fixed) quantity, meaning that
it can neither be created nor destroyed – the first law of
thermodynamics. If so, then how could the whole universe
be created out of nothing, without violating the first law (i.e.,
without first creating energy)?
As for the energy of a quantum vacuum, it remains constant
in spite of spontaneous materialisation of virtual particles
(which may further expand into universes), so no new energy
is required for this process. But the crucial question here is
that the universe which spontaneously materialised as a
virtual particle was essentially empty; then, how did
countless matter particles appeared within it without
violating the first law? In other words, where did the energy
come from to create particles – the building blocks of light,
matter, or anti-matter, all of which have (positive) energy?
TGD suggests that the answer lies in the law of gravity. Since
gravity has negative energy, on the scale of the entire
61
universe ‘the positive energy of the matter can be balanced

by the negative gravitational energy’. This has an astonishing
implication: the need of positive energy for the creation of all
the building blocks of matter could be annulled by their
negative gravitational energy. Thus, matter particles could
spontaneously come into existence in the empty space of the
universe, without requiring any energy. In other words, the
net energy of the universe, before and after the spontaneous
formation of all the matter particles, could remain zero
(conserved) and, therefore, ‘there is no restriction on the
creation of the whole universes. Because there is a law like
gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’.
Following ‘can’, the ‘will’ of necessity is purposefully added
here because of Richard Feynman’s formulation and
interpretation of quantum theory. Owing to it, TGD (61-83 &
135-136) claims that if, say, any ten events could possibly
take place in the universe, all of them would simultaneously
take place in ten parallelly existing histories of the universe
(multiverse). Since matter exists in our universe, we know
that the probability of its spontaneous formation in the
history of the universe observable to us is 100% (i.e., certain).
However, in other non-observable universes, there would
either be no matter, or completely different stuff with
different laws of physics, or some other possible
alternative.44
44
As we saw in Chapter 3, this so-called ‘many-worlds
interpretation’ is just one of many proposed interpretations of
quantum mechanics. The other (equally valid) interpretations do
not support the multiverse. So, hard quantum mechanical facts per
se do not make it necessary for us to believe in the multiverse.
62
Coming back to the spontaneous creation of matter, Hawking

(1998, 129) has explained this phenomenon in his book A
Brief History of Time as follows:
‘Where did they [1080 particles in the universe] all come from?
The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be
created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs
[quantum fluctuations]. But that just raises the question of
where the energy came from. The answer is that the total
energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the
universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter
is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are
close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces
a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to
separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling
them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has
negative energy. In the case of a universe that is
approximately uniform in space, one can show that this
negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive
energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the
universe is zero.’ (Brackets mine)
Further Explanation of TGD’s Position

Negative and positive energies
Since the idea of negative energy and spontaneous creation
of matter particles is quite counterintuitive, we should
explore it further with the help of the theoretical physicist
and astrobiologist Paul Davies45 (1996), who knows the art of
explaining complicated concepts simply and in layman terms:
45
Professor at Arizona State University
63
‘The big bang was the source of prolific energy, enough to

make all the matter that constitutes the stars and gases of
the galaxies, plus the heat radiation that bathes the cosmos.
But we are bound to ask, where did all that cosmic energy
come from in the first place?
Totting up the energy of the Universe is a straightforward
exercise, except that not all the contributions are positive.
Importantly, gravitational energy actually counts as an
energy deficit. Using a monetary analogy, the energy of
matter represents savings, but gravitational energy
represents a debt.
To take a practical illustration, positive energy, such as that
stored in a battery, can be used to perform useful work, eg to
power a motor. But gravitational energy requires the
expenditure of work to overcome it. Thus to pluck the Earth
out of the solar system, to which it is bound by the Sun's
gravitational force, would require a huge input of energy to
work against the Sun's attraction. Conversely, dropping the
Earth toward the Sun would release energy.
Gravitation is a universal force: every object in the Universe
pulls on every other object. A rough calculation of the
(negative) energy of all this cosmic attraction reveals a
remarkable result. Though enormous, it turns out to be very
close to the same enormous (positive) energy contained in
the material of all the stars. In other words, when the energy
of all the matter in the stars is added to the gravitational
energy of this same material, the answer comes out to be
about zero.
Actually, this is not quite true. The gravitational energy of the
stars is only a few per cent of the matter energy. However,
64
astronomers are convinced that the stars represent only a

small fraction of all the cosmic matter that exists. They have
good evidence that substantial quantities of unseen, or dark,
matter lurk in the depths of space. Taking the dark matter
into account, it is plausible that the total energy of the
Universe is precisely zero!
If this sum is correct, it carries a startling implication: a
particle of matter can come into existence without the need
for any additional energy. The energy locked up in the
material content of the particle is exactly offset by its
gravitational interaction with the rest of the Universe. Thus,
matter can appear in empty space without actually violating
the law of energy conservation. Once again, merely
identifying a possibility is not the same as producing a
detailed physical theory. However, unlike the situation for the
quantum origin of the Universe, there is a considerable body
of theory about the origin of matter. This theory goes under
the beguiling name of the "inflationary Universe scenario", or
simply "inflation”.’
Gravity, inflation, and the spontaneous creation of matter
To understand inflation, we turn to the father of this theory
Alan Guth46 (2001, 68-70). According to the inflationary
theory, he explains, the early universe (or, more precisely, 10-
33
cm space) created by a quantum fluctuation contained a
tiny patch filled with an unusual form of matter. It was
unusual in that the matter we are familiar with produces
gravity, which we all know is an attractive force, but the
46
Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
65
matter contained within that patch produced repulsive

gravity – sometimes called ‘anti-gravity’. This repulsive
gravity fuelled a rapid exponential expansion of the early
universe, namely inflation or ‘bang of the big bang’, as Guth
(1998, xiv) puts it. The big bang theory, he explains, describes
the aftermath of the bang, but not the actual bang. The
inflationary theory, on the other hand, describes ‘the first
tiny fraction of the second of the history of the universe, and
then the description merges with that of the standard big
bang theory’. (See Fig. 2, which puts inflation in context of
the overall history of the universe.)
Inflation had two peculiar features: One was that, during its
ephemeral course, the universe expanded at a much faster
rate compared to that at which it continued to expand
afterwards. The other is explained by Guth (2001, 69) as
follows:
‘Whenever a normal material expands its density goes down,
but this [repulsive gravity] material behaves completely
differently. As it expands, the density remains constant. That
means that the total amount of mass contained in the region
increased during inflation by a colossal factor.
The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because
it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy
conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are
claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch
increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is
that the […] energies are not always positive. In particular,
the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement,
that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both
in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in
the more sophisticated context of general relativity.
66
67
Fig. 2. A timeline of major events in the universe’s evolution (A public domain image; descriptions mine)
So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and

more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands
at constant density, more and more negative energy is
simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills
the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains
incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity
cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total
energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible
that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative
energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.’
This leaves us with the question how ordinary matter (with
attractive gravity) finally came into existence. According to
Guth (2001, 69-70), the repulsive-gravity matter was
unstable and, eventually, underwent radioactive decay.
Resultantly, enormous amount of energy was released,
which evolved into a hot soup of ordinary matter particles –
the building blocks of galaxies, stars, planets, and life.
This idea that various forms of positive energy can be
cancelled out by the equal amount of negative energy
present in the universe is called the ‘zero-energy hypothesis’,
first proposed by Edward P. Tryon47 in 1973. To summarise
this rather lengthy discussion in Michio Kaku’s48 (2013)
words: ‘It takes no energy to create a universe,’49 and in that
47
Professor of Physics at Hunter College, New York
48
Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City College
of New York
49
Like zero net matter-energy content on the scale of the whole
universe, Kaku explains, other stuff in the universe will also cancel
out to give zero; for example, net negative and positive charge of
all the particles in the universe will yield zero and the net effect of
68
of Guth (1998, 15): ‘It is fair to say that the universe is the
ultimate free lunch.’
Commentary
Quantum vacuum is manifestly not nothing!
In context of the spontaneous emergence of the universe,
TGD implicitly50 takes quantum vacuum as ‘nothing’. A
quantum vacuum, however, is far from nothing; it is, indeed,
something. The theoretical cosmologist Lawrence Krauss51
takes the same position as that of TGD in his 2012 book A
Universe from Nothing, but he is much more explicit on the
idea of ‘nothing’. In one of his talks (2009), hosted by Richard
Dawkins, he explained nothing as follows:
‘Nothing is not nothing anymore in physics. Because of the
laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, on
extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling, bubbling
brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of
the spin of galaxies in various directions will also be zero. This has
led some to believe that the universe is both something as well as
nothing, which is false. Zero energy before particles came into
existence and zero net-energy after their formation is not the
same: zero energy before the particles existed means absence of
energy, but zero net-energy after their existence means the
presence of equal amounts of positive and negative energies. The
same goes for all other balancing/opposite forces in the universe.
50
The way TGD’s narrative is put together and explained above has
already explicated many things. However, the original text is quite
vague, indirect, and incoherent, especially regarding the topics
covered in this chapter.
51
Professor of Astrophysics at Arizona State University
69
existence on a time scale so short you can't see them.’

Obviously, Krauss is referring to quantum fluctuations here.
David Albert52 (2012) sternly criticised such labelling of
quantum vacuum as nothing in one of his articles in the New
York Times:
‘Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states – no
less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems – are
particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The
true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there
not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular
arrangement of the fields – what it is (obviously, and
ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the
fields!53 The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to
correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not
a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the
possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to
the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that
particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those
fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious
than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over
time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these
poppings – if you look at them aright – amount to anything
even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from
nothing.’
The word ‘field’ is used here several times. In context of this
52
Ph.D., theoretical physics; currently a professor (engaged in
philosophy of physics and science) at Columbia University, New
York
53
I would like to add the absence of space too, since space has
certain measurable properties.
70
discussion, its definition is worth considering:

‘The field, although nearly as ethereal as the ether itself, can
be said to have physical reality. It occupies space. It contains
energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum. We must then
be content to define the vacuum of everyday discourse as a
region free of matter, but not free of field.’ (Wheeler and
Ford, 163)
To conclude this section, the correct statement ought to be
‘a universe out of a quantum vacuum and because of the
quantum vacuum energy’ which, as Lennox (2011, 30) says,
are ‘manifestly not nothing’.
Has physics rendered creatio ex nihilo impossible?
As we have seen, both TGD and Krauss claim that physics, or
more precisely Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, does not
allow the existence of ‘nothing’ in the sense the word is
understood in philosophy (nihil) or ordinary language (non-
being).
But as we have discussed in Chapter 1 and 3, there is no
question of the so-called laws or principles of physics without
a prior existence of particulars in nature, whose doings the
laws or principles describe. Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle is no exception; it is an outcome of the presence of
particles in the universe or, at least, the primitive quantum
vacuum out of which the universe is claimed to have
spontaneously emerged. If such a quantum vacuum itself
was created out of absolutely nothing (ex nihilo),
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was not even there to
‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ that!
Let us use this opportunity to touch upon the concept of
creatio ex nihilo in religion. ‘Ex nihilo’ (out of nothing) here
71
implies ‘out of no prior material cause’, but the word54 of

God. This word, carrying the will of God, metamorphosed
into the material that kicked off the evolution of the
universe, as per His plan and purpose of creation (Quran
36:82; Ghamidi 2018b, 98).
Next, we turn to TGD’s (180) conclusion that ‘because there
is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself
from nothing’. Elsewhere, as we saw in the previous chapter,
Hawking put it like this: ‘Gravity and quantum theory cause
universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing.’
‘Nothing’, once again, turns out to be something!
To free the conclusion of TGD from the misleading view of
laws in nature, we should translate it into Mumford’s (2004)
view of causal powers at work in the universe (presented in
Chapter 1): Because there is energy or matter with mass
(giving it the power to cause, so to speak, craters in the
spacetime fabric) and because there is the spacetime fabric
with its peculiar structure (giving it the power to curve in the
presence of energy or objects with mass), the coaction of the
powers of pre-existing energy/matter and space results in
gravity.
So, if gravity itself is dependent for its existence on the prior
existence of matter/energy and space, then how could
gravity cause their self-creation from nothing (Lennox 2011,
31 & 39-44)? Regarding this matter, the text of TGD is vague
throughout and lacks necessary details. To make matters
clearer, let us go through some explanatory passages found
54
The word ‘word’ is metaphorically used here. The exact nature of
what is referred to as ‘the word of God’ is beyond human
comprehension.
72
elsewhere:
‘The key idea – the underlying physics – that makes inflation
possible is the fact that most modern particle theories predict
that there should exist a state of matter that turns gravity on
its head, creating a gravitational repulsion. […] Inflation is the
proposition that the early universe contained at least a small
patch that was filled with this peculiar repulsive-gravity
material.’ (Guth 2001, 68)
‘Conceived in the early 1980s, inflation remains the favoured
version of the big bang theory. Boiled down to its essentials,
the inflationary scenario goes something like this. Shortly
after the Universe originated in a quantum process, and
before ordinary matter came to exist, space was filled with an
exotic type of energy field. This field had the property of
producing a gravitational repulsion – antigravity if you like –
that caused the Universe to expand faster and faster, so that
it jumped in size (inflated) by a huge amount in a split
second.’ (Davies 1996)
‘[I]f the quantum properties of matter and radiation end up
endowing even an infinitesimally small region of empty space
with energy at very early times, this region can grow to be
arbitrarily large and arbitrarily ﬂat. When the inﬂation is
over, one can end up with a universe full of stuff (matter and
radiation), and the total Newtonian gravitational energy of
that stuff will be as close as one can ever imagine to zero.’
(Krauss 2012, 104)
In light of these passages, TGD’s conclusion can now be
explicated as follows (See Fig. 3): The spacetime fabric (baby
universe) that spontaneously emerged out of a quantum
vacuum contained an infinitesimal patch filled with the
73
repulsive-gravity material. As the repulsive gravity caused

this material to explode, the universe (i.e., this material and
the boundaries of the spacetime fabric) started to expand
with the ‘bang’. During this inflation, the repulsive-gravity
material maintained its density, i.e., it underwent massive
self-replication55 (producing all the energy required for
making up all the matter particles in the universe) without
requiring any energy. The energy requirement was bypassed
due to the amazing properties of the repulsive-gravity
material and the spacetime fabric. As this material and space
swelled, equal positive energy (matter) and negative energy
(gravity) simultaneously resulted, such that the total energy
requirement amounted to zero.
It now becomes clear that TGD’s ‘from nothing’ here, like in
the case of quantum vacuum, once again turns out to be
something: pre-existing spacetime and the repulsive-gravity
material. Regarding how this material came into existence,
there are various theories and hypotheses ‘based on ideas
ranging from chaotic initial conditions to the creation of the
universe as a quantum tunnelling event’ (Guth 2001, 68).
However, none of these point to its self-creation out of
nothing, such that it becomes self-explanatory. A couple of
decades before TGD was published, Paul Davies (1990, 217)
was spot on in concluding this story as follows:
‘The “free lunch” scenario claims that all you need are the
laws – the universe can take care of itself, including its own
creation. […] But what of the laws? They have to be “there”
to start with so that the universe can come into being.
55
This self-replication is what TGD refers to as the spontaneous
gravity-driven self-creation of the universe, out of nothing.
74
Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense) so that a

quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first
place.’
Fig. 3. Highlights of TGD’s (The Grand Design) creation story
75
In light of our discussion of laws, it should be clear that by

saying ‘laws’ and ‘quantum physics’, Davies here is alluding
to the peculiar properties of the pre-existing stuff.
Even if the zero-energy/free-lunch hypothesis were well-
established it, at best, answers how questions, not any
fundamental why questions (which essentially are beyond
the scope of science). To be precise, it describes how an
enormous amount of new matter was spontaneously
generated in the universe in an energy-efficient manner. But
it does not answer why the quantum-vacuum energy
possessed such an awe-inspiring propensity to transmute
into self-replicating repulsive-gravity matter, elementary
particles of conventional matter, atoms, galaxies, stars,
heavy elements, planets, water, and, eventually, life. ‘By
chance’ is obviously a non-answer here, no matter if it comes
wrapped in an exciting proposition like the multiverse, as we
shall see. Now when the core of TGD’s creation story lies
open in front of us (Fig. 3), we can move on to see what
implications it has for the theistic God.
76
5. Is it time to
celebrate/mourn A Personal
God’s death?
‘To the majority of those who have reflected deeply and

written about the origin and nature of the universe, it has
seemed that it points beyond itself to a source which is non-
physical and of great intelligence and power. Almost all of the
great classical philosophers — certainly Plato, Aristotle,
Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Locke, Berkeley —
saw the origin of the universe as lying in a transcendent
reality. They had different specific ideas of this reality, and
different ways of approaching it; but that the universe is not
self-explanatory, and that it requires some explanation
beyond itself, was something they accepted as fairly obvious.’
Keith Ward
God, Chance and Necessity (1996), 1
‘Both religion and science require a belief in God. For

believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at
the end of all considerations. […] To the former He is the
foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every
generalized world view.’
Max Planck, Nobel Laureate in Physics (1918)
A lecture on “Religion and Natural Science” in Baltic region (May 1937)
Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1949), 184
B efore coming to this question, it seems appropriate to

see how TGD (The Grand Design) epistemologically
interprets scientific knowledge: its validity on the
world around us and the question of God.
77
Model-dependent realism
TGD’s Position
TGD (39-59) argues that modern physics neither supports
ontological realism (the position that a concrete universe
exists independent of us, the observers) nor subjective
idealism/anti-realism (suggesting that there is no external
universe, and all that exists merely exists within our minds).
Therefore, TGD adopts a view called ‘model-dependent
realism’. The term is coined by the authors to represent the
idea that what we see as, for example, a chair is actually only
a picture/model created by our brain, as it interprets the
visual data. There is no way we can reach the actual chair (if
any) independent of our brain-model to pass any verdict
about its ontological status: we cannot tell if the visual data
is originating from a real chair existing independent of us out
there (and is modelled sufficiently well by our brains) or it is
fed into our brains through some other source56. Ontological
questions, therefore, are beyond the reach of our knowledge
and are pointless.
In addition to the involuntary models our brains create as a
routine, we also make models (laws or theories) in science to
explain observations and make predictions. One such model
is the famous equation based on Einstein’s special theory of
relativity: E = m × c2, where E represents energy (potential to
56
For example, as for a chair we see in a dream, its data is not fed
into our brains from what we call the ‘external world’. Similarly,
while being awake, we might be conscious characters in a dream-
like (or a virtual reality-like) situation, who are fed with mere data
without any concrete reality behind it.
78
5. God and Stephen Hawking
do work), m mass, and c the speed of light57. This elegant (i.e.,

concise and simple) model explains the relationship between
mass and energy, has the ability to explain complex
observations, and make scientifically useful predictions. For
example, if we want to know how much energy an object of
specific mass will contain on Mars, we can confidently
employ this equation. TGD (ibid.) suggests that all such
scientific models should be discussed in the framework of
model-dependent realism. That will require us to avoid
ontological questions about scientific models58 and
encourage us to judge them on the basis of their elegance59,
57
E = m × c2 implies that the amount of energy in an object is equal
to its mass times the speed of light squared; for example, if we want
to know the amount of energy in a stationary stone with mass of 2
kilograms (kg) we can find it out using this equation:
m = 2 kg
c = 299,792,458 meters per second (m/s)
E = 2 kg × (299,792,458 m/s)2 = 599,548,916 kg × m2/s2
Since 1 kg × m2/s2 = 1 joule, a 2 kg stone will contain 599,548,916
joules of energy in it.
58
For E = m × c2, for example, it will be irrelevant to ask whether
mass and energy are particulars or properties of particulars,
present in the real external world. Instead, we shall start our
discussion from the point that the relationship between mass and
energy is so, according to our perception.
59
Elegance here refers to simplicity and conciseness (of the sort we
find in E = m × c2). It further implies that the model need not be
adjusted on ad hoc basis to fit with observations and contain only
a few (if any) arbitrarily adjustable elements. E = m × c2 would have
been an inelegant model if, for example, the value of c needed to
be arbitrarily altered to conform to or explain the observations.
79
utility to explain existing observations, and ability to make

experimentally testable predictions. If two or more such
models live up to this criterion while attempting to describe
the same phenomenon, they will be accepted as equally
valid.60
Commentary
Model-dependent realism leaves no room for truth or
ontological claims, such as ‘God does or does not exist’.
‘Realism’ in ‘model-dependent realism’ is a rather misleading
term because, as mentioned above, TGD does not take as
real or absolute truth what our mental and scientific models
60
To further illustrate the point, TGD (39-46) asks us to think of fish
kept within a spherical bowl. Due to the curved surface of the bowl,
the fish will have a distorted view of the world outside the bowl;
for example, an object moving in a straight line will appear to the
fish to take a curved path. But if one such fish happens to be
Newton, it can still formulate laws of motion from its point of
reference, which will agree with observations of moving objects
from within the bowl and also make correct predictions about their
motion. The laws of motion formulated by the fish will be different
to ours; nonetheless, they will be completely valid from the fish’s
perspective, and leave, at least, the realist fish with no reason to
doubt its picture of reality. Our laws and the fish’s laws of motion
both will model the motion of the same objects adequately but
from different frame of references, and both will be useful and
valid – ours outside the bowl and that of the fish within it. Similarly,
if we ourselves happen to be inside some invisible spherical bowl
distorting our view of ‘reality’, that will have no bearing on the
validity of our laws from the perspective of model-dependent
realism.
80
tell us. Rather, it takes an idealist approach where the

external reality is neither negated nor affirmed [Lennox
(2011, 57) correctly refers to TGD’s position as anti-realism].
So when it makes ontological or truth statements, model-
dependent realism restricts us not to take them literally. For
example, when TGD (59, 136, 153, 154 & 165, respectively)
claims that ‘every possible version of the universe exists
simultaneously’, ‘in fact, many universes exist with many
different sets of physical laws’, ‘planets of all sorts exist’, ‘our
own knowledge of our existence’ and ‘the fine-tunings in the
laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple
universes’, all it implies is that according to our perception or
scientific models, things exist in such and such manner. As for
reality, model-dependent realism fully endorses the
possibility that our brain and scientific tools might be
showing us a completely false picture of it. Thus, any truth
claims by definition are beyond the scope of TGD, and that
includes the existence/non-existence of God. That is why
TGD does not go as far as to claim that God does not exist.
During Larry King Live (2012), Hawking explicated his position
in this regard saying, ‘God may exist, but science can explain
the universe without a need for a creator.’ At one place, TGD
(42) says:
‘How do we know we are not just characters in a computer-
generated soap opera? If we lived in a synthetic imaginary
world, events would not necessarily have any logic or
consistency or obey any laws. The aliens in control might find
it more interesting or amusing to see our reactions, for
example, if the full moon split in half. […] But if the aliens did
enforce consistent laws, there is no way we could tell there
was another reality behind the simulated one.’
81
This exactly is the scope of TGD’s science, which has got

nothing to say about the ultimate reality. Even if it can show
that the universe is self-explanatory, it is mute to go on and
claim that a creator61 is unnecessary, let alone does not exist.
TGD’s position is quite understandable for only a creator (if
any) can answer the ultimate questions and reveal the
ultimate knowledge. This highlights the importance of divine
revelation (if such exists) as a source of knowledge and
invites every sincere seeker to seriously investigate this
matter, rather than outrightly rejecting such a possibility or
showing antipathy to religion because of naïve claims and
attitudes of people who carry its name.
Next, we shall anyway go through important passages of TGD
with direct implications for the question of God and see how
TGD defends its claim that ‘science can explain the universe
without a need for a creator.’
Are laws self-explanatory?

TGD’s Position
TGD’s ultimate explanation of the universe boils down to the
so-called laws of physics. Are laws self-explanatory, such that
they do not need any further explanation? TGD’s answer, at
least regarding the fundamental laws of nature, is in the
affirmative. Presenting John Conway’s Game of Life62 as an
61
The words like ‘creator’ or ‘supreme being’ and corresponding
pronouns are only capitalised when referring to the Abrahamic
(theistic) God.
62
Lennox (2011, 69-70) has produced a useful summary of
Conway’s Game of Life as follows:
82
‘Conway envisioned a “world” consisting of an array of squares like

a chess board, but extending indefinitely in all directions. Each
square can be in one of two states, “alive” or “dead”, represented
by the squares being coloured green or black respectively. Each
square has eight neighbours (up, down, left, right and four on the
diagonals). Time moves in discrete steps. You start with any chosen
arrangement of alive and dead squares; there are three rules or
laws that determine what happens next, all proceeding
deterministically from the initial chosen state. Some simple
patterns remain the same, others change for several generations
and then die out; yet others return to their original form after
several generations and then repeat the process indefinitely. There
are “gliders”, consisting of five alive squares, which morph through
five intermediate shapes and then return to their original shape,
albeit displacing one square along the diagonal. And there are
many more sophisticated forms of behaviour exhibited by more
complex initial configurations.
Part of Conway’s world (remember that it is assumed infinite in all
directions) can be modelled on a computer, so that one can watch
what happens as generation succeeds generation. For instance,
“gliders” can be observed crawling diagonally across the screen (To
see what this looks like visit
wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life).
This world with its simple laws holds great attraction for
mathematicians, and has been instrumental in the development of
the important theory of cellular automata. Conway and his
students, as Hawking points out, showed that there are complex
initial configurations that self-replicate under the laws. Some of
them are so-called Universal Turing Machines that can, in principle,
carry out any calculation that could be carried out on a computer.
Configurations of alive and dead squares in Conway’s world that
are able to do this have been calculated as being of enormous size
– consisting of trillions of squares (See http://rendell-
83
example, TGD (179) argues that ‘even a very simple set of

laws can produce complex features similar to those of
intelligent life. There must be many laws with this property.
What picks out the fundamental laws (as opposed to the
apparent laws) that govern our universe? As in Conway’s
universe, the laws of our universe determine the evolution of
the system given the state at any one time. In Conway’s world
we are the creators – we choose the initial state of the
universe by specifying objects and their positions at the start
of the game.’
Commentary
In his critical response to TGD, Lennox (2011, 71-72) quotes
the same paragraph and wittily responds to it as follows:
‘At this point Hawking diverts from the Game of Life, and
leaves the reader uncertain as to exactly how he is applying
it. Nevertheless, one can surely say that the impression has
been communicated to the reader that, just as in Conway’s
world a simple set of laws can produce lifelike complexity, in
our world a simple set of laws could produce life itself.
However, the analogy shows nothing of the sort, but rather
the exact opposite. First of all, in Conway’s world the laws do
not produce the complex self-replicating objects. Laws, as we
have constantly emphasized, create nothing in any world:
they can only act on something that is already there. In
Conway’s world the immensely complex objects that can self-
replicate under the laws have to be initially configured in the
system by highly intelligent mathematical minds. They are
created neither from nothing nor by chance, but by
attic.org/gol/utm/index.htm).’
84
intelligence. The same applies to the laws.

Secondly, Conway’s world has to be implemented, and this is
done using sophisticated computer hardware with all its
attendant software and high-speed algorithms. The alive and
dead cells are represented by pixellated squares on a screen,
and the laws governing their behaviour are programmed into
the system. It should go without saying – but it clearly needs
to be said – that all of this involves massive intellectual
activity and input of information.
In this way, even though he is allergic to the notion of
intelligent design, Hawking has just given an excellent
argument in its support. Ironically, he actually admits this by
saying that, in Conway’s world, we are the creators.
And in our universe the Creator is God.’
God or the multiverse?

TGD’s Position
TGD puts forward the multiverse hypothesis as an alternative
to that of a personal God. It presents its case as follows:
‘Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both
is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little
room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises
the natural question of why it is that way. Many people would
like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of
God.’ (162-163)
‘But the discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-
tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least
some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the
work of some grand designer. […] That is not the answer of
85
modern science. […] Our universe seems to be one of many,

each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion
invented to account for the miracle of fine-tuning. It is a
consequence of the no-boundary condition as well as many
other theories of modern cosmology. But if it is true, then the
strong anthropic principle can be considered effectively
equivalent to the weak one, putting the fine-tunings of
physical law on the same footing as the environmental
factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat – now the entire
observable universe – is only one of many, just as our solar
system is one of many. That means that in the same way that
the environmental coincidences of our solar system were
rendered unremarkable by the realization that billions of such
systems exist, the fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be
explained by the existence of multiple universes. Many people
through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and
complexity of nature that in their time seemed to have no
scientific explanation.’ (164-165)
Commentary
Firstly, there are top-level scientists who, rather than
rejecting ‘the old idea’63 of God on the basis of scientific
evidence, use this evidence to argue for God (See Lennox
2009). Therefore, the statement that God ‘is not the answer
of modern science’ is misleading as if it is a well-established
fact within the scientific community. Secondly, it is rather a
63
Lennox (2011, 48) correctly points out that the word ‘old’ here
gives a wrong impression as if the idea is false and replaced by
something better.
86
lame philosophical speculation that the fine-tuning64 of the

universe is a coincidence, not a scientific hypothesis. The
multiverse concept does not make it any better because, for
one, it is far from being verifiable. (Verifiability is important
in that it is a basic requirement for any hypothesis to be
called scientific.) The prominent quantum theorist John
Polkinghorne (2007, 95) writes:
‘Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They
are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There
is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of
universes. By construction these other worlds are
unknowable by us. A possible explanation of equal
intellectual responsibility – and to my mind greater economy
and elegance – would be that this one world is the way it is,
because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes
that it should be so.’
Even if the idea of the multiverse is accepted, it neither
explains the fine-tuning65 of the universe in scientific (or any
other) terms nor does it remove the need of God as the
ultimate explanation of all there is (Lennox 2011, 47-66). To
illustrate this point, suppose we come across 10500 heaps of
stones (whatever that number means), among which one
64
To get a glimpse of how remarkable the fine-tuning is that has
made possible the universe and its sentient beings, see a sub-
section devoted to this in Lennox’s ‘God’s Undertaker: Has Science
Buried God? (2009, 68-73).
65
It needs to be appreciated, but is often overlooked, that the
‘miracle of fine-tuning’ is not the occurrence of a few extremely
improbable events that have made possible the universe and life
herein; instead, it is a tale of countless such events.
87
happens to be an automatic plant, producing Mercedes Benz.

Would such a marvel of engineering not require us to explain
it by seeking the engineer responsible for it, even if no
engineer is there to be seen? Would the ingenuity and
purpose exhibited by that plant be explained away or
become ‘unremarkable’ by the presence of numerous
worthless heaps of stones around? Of course, not.66
Now, how various processes in that plant work would be a
subject of our scientific inquiry. Science might also reveal
that the plant slowly self-assembled (evolved) from some
primitive material. However, what science would not explain
is why, in the first place, that primitive material came loaded
with a potential to perfectly evolve into various parts and
components of such a plant. Similarly, it would, for instance,
not answer why all the other conditions/factors were readily
there for a harmonised evolution of the plant toward such a
purposeful end. What is beyond science, however, is not
necessarily beyond reason and rationality.67 Through
abduction (inference to the best explanation), therefore, one
can readily infer a mind behind the plant. That, however, will
66
Admittedly, however, there arises a question why all the other
heaps of stones show no signs of design. In regard to the fine-
tuning and life to be found only on the earth among countless other
planets, the Quran (14:48) answers this question. It tells that the
other lifeless planets, stars, and galaxies are there as the raw-
material for the forthcoming universe. According to the promise of
God, that universe shall be created as a perfect, eternal abode for
the meek.
67
This sentence is inspired by the title of Epilogue in Lennox 2009,
207.
88
not be ‘the answer of science’. Not because science has

invalidated it or is in conflict with it, but because, in the strict
sense, such an inference is beyond the scope of the scientific
method.
In the above analogy, we presumed that only one out of 10500
heaps of stones happened to be a brilliant plant. From the
naturalist’s perspective, this presumption may colossally
increase the margin of error for the nature (whatever that
agent means) to eventually come up with the right plant,
fine-tuned to produce Mercedes Benz. Regarding 10500
universes postulated, however, it is by no means obvious
that they are not fine-tuned for life or some other purpose
(Lennox 2011, 49). In that case, the multiverse concept would
colossally augment the need for an intelligent and wise
creator, rather than eliminating it.
Post-script: Just before his death, Hawking endorsed the
point made in the last paragraph, originally written sometime
in 2014. Philip Goff68 (2018), thus, reports in the Guardian:
‘In Hawking’s older version of the multiverse hypothesis,
there is great variety among the laws in different universes.
[…] [I]n his final paper, “A Smooth Exit from Eternal
Inflation?”69, Hawking and his co-writer, Thomas Hertog,
formulate strict limits to the kind of universes that populate
the multiverse.
The problem is that the less variety there is among the
universes, the less capable the multiverse hypothesis is of
68
Assoc. Professor of Philosophy at Central European University,
Budapest
69
Available from https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702
89
explaining fine-tuning. If there is a huge amount of variation

in the laws across the multiverse, it is not so surprising that
one of the universes would happen to have fine-tuned laws.
But if all of the universes have exactly the same laws – as in
Hawking and Hertog’s proposal – the problem returns, as we
now need an explanation of why the single set of laws that
govern the entire multiverse is fine-tuned.
Hertog seems not to agree, arguing that the paper does make
progress on fine-tuning: “This paper takes one step towards
explaining that mysterious fine-tuning… It reduces the
multiverse down to a more manageable set of universes
which all look alike.” However, this merely puts off the
explanation of fine-tuning, for the result is that the laws
underlying the generation of the multiverse are fine-tuned.
We now need to explain not only why our universe is fine-
tuned but why every universe is fine-tuned! In terms of
explaining the fine-tuning, this is not a step forward but a
step back.’
Why is there something rather than nothing?
TGD’s Position
‘Spontaneous creation,’ says TGD (180), ‘is the reason there
is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists,
why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the
blue touch paper and set the universe going.’ (For details, see
Chapter 4.)
90
Commentary
It’s the question of potential!
By appealing to spontaneous creation, TGD is attempting
here to eradicate the need of God as the so-called ‘First
Cause’. That does not work because it is, in fact, spontaneous
creation out of a pre-existing quantum vacuum (spacetime
and energy) and, subsequently, the repulsive-gravity matter.
And that raises the obvious question who or what caused the
quantum vacuum and such matter, if not God?
Why God? Because whether it was out of a quantum vacuum
or ex nihilo creation, the primitive vacuum-energy70 came
loaded with a wonderful potential to produce the self-
replicating repulsive-gravity matter, building blocks of
conventional matter, atoms, attractive gravity, galaxies,
stars, heavy elements, planets, water and, eventually, life.
Such evolution would have been impossible if the primitive
energy did not have the potential to transform into new
existents with splendid properties (such as those necessary
to produce gravity). All these existents then proved to be
perfectly complementary to form a universe which is a
marvel of beauty, elegance, and creativity. It exhibits, for
instance, mathematical order and symmetry; delicate
balance of forces; harmony and coherence amidst the
presence of opposite entities; complex self-sustaining
systems and natural cycles; efficient means to meaningful
ends; and sustenance for not only sentient but intelligent life,
capable of appreciating all these wonders. This grand design,
70
‘Vacuum’ is used as an adjective with ‘energy’ to take into
account TGD’s hypothesis of creation. In a broader perspective, it
should be read ‘primitive energy/matter’.
91
resulting from the potentiality ingrained within

matter/energy, is obviously impossible without massive
intellectual input, planning, prudence, power, and authority.
And that necessarily requires knowledge, wisdom, will, and
volition, but energy/matter/space is void of these.71 That is
what compels us to infer an external mind – the grand
designer – behind our universe. Furthermore, when even a
small automated system cannot be run without continuous
supervision, how can such a gigantic and complex universe
go on, on its own? Thus, our universe not only ought to have
an all-knowing and all-powerful creator (the First Cause)
behind it, but a creator who is constantly supervising it, as
claimed by revealed religion (See Ghamidi 2018b, 90-123 and
Quranic references therein).72
71
Even if the universe possessed all these attributes, it is absurd
and self-contradictory anyway to postulate that the universe (or
anything else for that matter) could create itself, out of nothing
(See Lennox 2011, 30-31).
72
Here, we have inferred the existence of God to explain the
existence of the universe. Such an inference to the most likely or
best explanation of some observation(s) is formally called
‘abductive reasoning’ or ‘abduction’. Abduction is ubiquitous in all
fields of study, including science. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy (2017) states: ‘Philosophers of science have argued that
abduction is a cornerstone of scientific methodology; see, for
instance, Boyd 1981, 1984, Harré 1986, 1988, Lipton 1991, 2004,
and Psillos 1999. According to Timothy Williamson (2007), “[t]he
abductive methodology is the best science provides” and Ernan
McMullin (1992) even goes so far to call abduction “the inference
that makes science.”’ An example of abductive reasoning is the
theory of evolution, wherein common descent is inferred as the
most likely explanation of available data (showing variation within
92
As for who that creator is and why he has kept himself

hidden, these metaphysical questions are beyond the scope
of science. However, they are unanimously answered by
revealed religion, such that these answers have become a
common heritage of humankind (Ghamidi 2006a and 2018,
93-96). If one intends to challenge this heritage, one has to
refute the arguments and evidence provided by religion
therefor and enlighten the world with an alternative
answer.73 The only alternative answer available so far, as we
have seen, is the absurd and self-contradictory claim that the
universe itself is its own creator (See Lennox 2011, 30-31).
species; homologous structures among species; and similar or,

sometimes, identical genes across species etc). Another example is
the discovery of sub-atomic particles, whose existence cannot be
directly perceived but inferred from their effects. Yet another
interesting example is the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence
(SETI), wherein radio signals are monitored from the outer space
for semantic messages. The underlying idea here is based on
abductive reasoning that if such a message is received or
intercepted, it would be indicative of other intelligent beings in the
universe. In 1982, a petition from Carl Sagan (426) advocating SETI
was published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals,
Science. The petition was signed by 68 scientists, with seven Nobel
Prize winners among them. Since then, many expensive projects
have been undertaken and much collective effort is dedicated to
SETI. In 2015, a Stephen Hawking-backed programme,
‘Breakthrough Initiatives’ (2017), was launched for this purpose
with $100 million cash investment. One project of the programme,
‘Breakthrough Listen’, is dedicated to probe over one million stars
for radio or laser signals in anticipation of intelligent life.
73
For a Quran-based argument for God, see Hassan 2018a.
93
A desperate measure to get rid of God

What if we take for granted the existence of a tiny patch of
repulsive-gravity material, about one-billionth the size of a
proton (Guth 2001, 69), and accept that it caused the early
universe’s space to inflate? Can we, then, not go on to argue
that this material played no role as a cause in the emergence
of new such material during inflation and that the new
material did not emerge out of it, but independently
emerged out of nothing? Since the new material provided
the raw-material for essentially all the matter in the universe,
can we not say that the whole universe emerged from
nothing, without any cause?
As for the cause, we cannot sidestep the repulsive-gravity
material because its enormous replication would simply have
been impossible if its infinitesimal amount, with the potential
to expand with a constant density, were not already there.
However, it may be argued that the new material did not
already exist within the infinitesimal primitive material and,
thus, it emerged out of nothing without any further material
cause; the non-requirement of energy for this process
sidestepped the need for such a cause. But is the material
cause, which is only partially sidestepped, the only necessary
cause for such a phenomenon, such that it makes God
unnecessary? To answer this question, let us turn to Lennox
(2011, 36-39) once more:
‘Suppose, to make matters clearer, we replace the universe
by a jet engine and then are asked to explain it. Shall we
account for it by mentioning the personal agency of its
inventor, Sir Frank Whittle? Or shall we follow Hawking:
dismiss personal agency, and explain the jet engine by saying
that it arose naturally from physical law?
94
It is clearly nonsensical to ask people to choose between

Frank Whittle and science as an explanation for the jet
engine. For it is not a question of either/or. It is self-evident
that we need both levels of explanation in order to give a
complete description. It is also obvious that the scientific
explanation neither conflicts nor competes with the agent
explanation: they complement one another. It is the same
with explanations of the universe: God does not conflict or
compete with the laws of physics as an explanation. God is
actually the ground of all explanation, in the sense that he is
the cause in the first place of there being a world for the laws
of physics to describe.
Offering people the choice between God and science is
therefore illogical. In addition, it is very unwise, because some
people might just choose God and then Hawking could be
accused of putting people off science!
[…]
The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but
not how it came to exist in the first place. It is self-evident that
the laws of physics could not have created a jet engine on
their own. That task also needed the intelligence,
imagination, and scientific creativity of Whittle. Indeed, even
the laws of physics plus Frank Whittle were not sufficient to
produce a jet engine. There also needed to be some material
that Whittle could use. Matter may be humble stuff, but laws
cannot create it.
Millennia ago Aristotle thought a great deal about these
issues. He spoke about four different “causes” that we can,
perhaps, reasonably translate informally as “levels of
explanation”. Thinking of the jet engine, first there is the
95
material cause – the raw material out of which the engine is

crafted; then there is the formal cause – the concept, plan,
theory, and blueprint that Sir Frank Whittle conceived and to
which he worked. Next there is the efficient cause – Sir Frank
Whittle himself, who did the work. Fourthly, and last in the
list, there is the final cause – the ultimate purpose for which
the jet engine was conceived and built: to power a particular
aircraft to fly faster than ever before.
[…]
Much as I find it hard to believe, Hawking seems to wish to
reduce all explanation to formal causes only. He claims that
all that is necessary to create the universe is the law of
gravity.’
Does the ‘no boundary condition’ render God

unnecessary?
TGD’s Position
‘No-boundary condition’ or, alternatively, the ‘Hartle-
Hawking state’, is explained in TGD (134-135) as this: ‘In the
early universe […] there were effectively four dimensions of
space and none of time’, since ‘time behave[d] like another
dimension of space’. ‘That means that when we speak of the
“beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue
that as we look backwards towards the very early universe,
time as we know it does not exist!’ So, ‘the question of what
happened before the beginning of the universe is rendered
meaningless’. No-boundary condition ‘removes the age-old
objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means
that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws
96
of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some god’.
Commentary
Again, TGD is attempting here to eradicate the need of God
as the First Cause and, again, it fails to do so, even if we
ignore the technical problems associated with the no-
boundary condition and accept it at face value. That is
because, irrespective of the existence/non-existence of time,
the primitive space/energy came equipped with the potential
to create the entire universe, including time. This potential
and its subsequent manifestation, which made the evolution
of a breath-taking universe possible, clearly points to a mind
behind it. It cannot be explained away by a ‘horizontal’
(scientific/physical) reasoning or causation, but necessarily
requires a ‘vertical’ (metaphysical) explanation, to borrow
the terms of Wolfgang Smith74. Smith (2011, 29-31)
elucidates with utmost clarity that these two modes of
explanation are complementary, not contradictory.
Smith (2011, 31-34) goes on to argue that the removal of
time has no implication for God’s act of creation, for that
does not take place in time. Time, as St. Augustine (354–430)
points out, is a created phenomenon and, therefore, does
not apply to the Creator Himself. Boethius (480–525)
followed him in this view, maintaining that God does not
exist in time, but is timelessly eternal. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017) explains his view as
follows:
‘All temporal events are before the mind of God at once. To
74
A senior mathematician, physicist, philosopher, and
metaphysician
97
say “at once” or “simultaneously” is to use a temporal

metaphor, but Boethius is clear that it does not make sense
to think of the whole of temporal reality as being before God’s
mind in a single temporal present. It is an atemporal present
in which God has a single complete grasp of all events in the
entire span of time.’
Following in Boethius’ footsteps, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–
1274) writes:
‘[A]lthough corporeal and temporal particulars do not exist
simultaneously, God surely has simultaneous knowledge of
them. For He knows them according to His manner of being,
which is eternal and without succession. Consequently, as He
knows material things in an immaterial way, and many things
in unity, so in a single glance He beholds objects that do not
exist at the same time. And so His knowledge of particulars
does not involve the consequence that anything is added to,
or subtracted from, His cognition.
This also makes it clear that He has certain knowledge of
contingent things. Even before they come into being, He sees
them as they actually exist, and not merely as they will be in
the future and as virtually present in their causes, in the way
we are able to know some future things. Contingent things,
regarded as virtually present in their causes with a claim to
future existence, are not sufficiently determinate to admit of
certain knowledge about them; but, regarded as actually
possessing existence, they are determinate, and hence
certain knowledge of them is possible. Thus we can know with
the certitude of ocular vision that Socrates is sitting while he
is seated. With like certitude God knows, in His eternity, all
that takes place throughout the whole course of time, for His
eternity is in present contact with the whole course of time,
98
and even passes beyond time. We may fancy that God knows
the flight of time in His eternity, in the way that a person
standing on top of a watchtower embraces in a single glance
a whole caravan of passing travelers.’75 (Aquinas 2012, 142)
All this implies that time did not exist at the outset of the
universe or came to be with the existence of the universe as
a local phenomenon, exactly as TGD claims.
But then, according to TGD, ‘the beginning of the universe
was governed by the laws of science’. These laws, as we have
seen, call for an explanation for their existence, which only
means that the inaugural act of the universe’s creation could
not be ‘mediated by a temporal (horizontal) sequence of
events’ but necessarily had a vertical (timeless or
transcendent) cause. And this is exactly what Judeo-Christo-
Islamic tradition maintains.
Who created God?
TGD’s Position
‘It is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe,’
argues TGD (172), ‘but if the answer is God, then the question
has merely been deflected to that of who created God. In this
view it is accepted that some entity exists that needs no
75
Such views are brilliant but humble attempts to understand the
mind of God. Are they true? We cannot know, unless God Himself
reveals to us how He is beyond time and, so to speak, experiences
our time. However, these views are extremely useful for the
purpose of stretching our minds and appreciating new possibilities
that we often fail to see due to our rigid religious or scanty scientific
spectacles.
99
creator, and that entity is called God.’
Commentary
Indeed, revealed religion introduces God as an uncreated,
self-explanatory agent. The insistence of atheists on the
impossibility of this proposition is mere anthropomorphism,
as the physicist Edgar Andrews76 (2012, 25) in his book Who
Made God? points out:
‘Cause and effect do indeed reign supreme in the physical
realm – both science and normal life would be impossible
unless they did. But why should they operate in the same
manner in a spiritual realm (if such exists)? We have a choice.
Firstly, we can assert a priori that there is no such thing as a
spiritual realm – that nothing exists that is not physical and
open to scientific investigation. On this basis we can proceed
to claim, with some logical justification, that every possible
effect must have a cause, because that is how the physical
world works. But what we cannot do is use this claim to
disprove the existence of God on the grounds that he doesn’t
have a cause! Why not? Because our argument would be
completely circular. We begin by assuming that no spiritual
realm exists and conclude by ‘proving’ our initial assumption.’
Furthermore, the ‘reasonable’ question ‘who or what created
the universe’, as TGD puts it, arises because the universe
cannot explain its own existence. If, like our universe, God
does not happen to be self-explanatory but made, only then
would the hypothetical question ‘who made God?’ become
valid (Ghamidi 2006a). In that case, we shall try to settle this
question, too. But how can we, for the sake of avoiding a
76
Emeritus Professor at Queen Mary, University of London
100
hypothetical question, endorse a self-contradictory position

that the universe itself is its own creator?
101
Conclusion
‘Have they come into being without any creator? Or are they
their own creators? Or have they created the heavens and the
earth? Nay, they do not believe [for doubt has blinded
them]!’77
The Quran (52:35-36)
The hypothesis presented in TGD (The Grand Design) and its

implications are summarised towards the end of the book (p.
180) as follows:
‘Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will
create itself from nothing. [...] Spontaneous creation is the
reason there is something rather than nothing, why the
universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God
to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.’
According to this hypothesis, the story of our universe began
from a quantum vacuum, termed ‘nothing’. That nothing,
however, was far from being so. It contained space and
energy, which gave birth to our baby universe – namely
infinitesimal space, containing a tiny patch of self-replicating
77
Originally, the Quran put these questions to the Meccan
Polytheists, who believed in God but denied the Hereafter. The
implication is that if they believed in God, they also had to believe in
the Judgement Day because that is a necessary consequence of a
just, wise, omniscient, and omnipotent Creator (Ghamidi 2018a, vol.
5, 58). These questions, however, are so fundamental, natural, and
universal that all of us can be their addressees, especially those who
deny the existence of God.
102
Conclusion
repulsive-gravity matter. The repulsive gravity caused that

peculiar matter to explode. During the explosion, it – unlike
conventional matter – kept its density uniform. It means that
it underwent enormous self-replication, producing all the
raw-material to be transformed later into conventional
matter. During this process, the space of the universe
expanded from a flat 10-33 cm to the size of a golf-ball. Since
this inflation happened in no time (10-32 sec), TGD refers to it
as gravity-driven spontaneous self-creation of the universe,
out of nothing. Again, this ‘nothing’, like the quantum
vacuum, was not nothing but, as mentioned, a tiny space
with a patch of prodigious repulsive-gravity matter (baby
universe). It could not be nothing, for nothing begets
nothing; there must exist something first to bring about
another. Lennox (2011, 31), therefore, commits no error as
he points out this:
‘[Hawking] says the universe comes from a nothing that turns
out to be a something78 (self-contradiction number one), and
then he says the universe creates itself (self-contradiction
number two)79. But that is not all. His notion that a law of
nature (gravity) explains the existence of the universe is also
self-contradictory, since a law of nature, by definition, surely
depends for its own existence on the prior existence of the
78
I.e., a quantum vaccuum.
79
‘If, therefore, we say “X creates X”,’ explains Lennox (2011, 31),
‘we imply that we are presupposing the existence of X in order to
account for the existence of X. This is obviously self-contradictory
and thus logically incoherent – even if we put X equal to the
universe! To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for
its own existence sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland,
not science.’
103
nature it purports to describe.’

Correctly speaking, the hypothesis of TGD, therefore,
describes the evolution of our universe from a quantum
vacuum. This postulated vacuum contained energy equipped
with an awe-inspiring disposition to produce self-replicating
repulsive-gravity matter, building blocks of conventional
matter, atoms, attractive gravity, galaxies, stars, heavy
elements, planets, water and, eventually, life. Based on this
hypothesis, TGD oddly claims that the universe itself is its
creator and, thus, needs no external creator for its
explanation. However, once made explicit, the hypothesis
does not lend any support to this claim. Quite the contrary,
the existence and evolution of such a spectacular universe
cannot be explained without a stupendous mind behind it.
‘By chance,’ as hastily exclaimed, is an embarrassingly bad
answer, with no explanatory power. The situation does not
get any better when it comes wrapped in an intriguing
speculation like that of the multiverse (See Chapter 5).
Looking closely, the evolution of our universe would have
been impossible if the primitive energy/matter were not, in
the first place, equipped with the potential to transform into
new existents with splendid properties. All these existents
then perfectly complemented each other to shape a universe
which is a marvel of beauty, elegance, and creativity: It has
mathematical order from atoms to galaxies. It exhibits
aesthetical design from a snowflake, butterfly, and pineapple
to the sun and the Milky Way. It demonstrates a delicate
balance of forces along with harmony and coherence amidst
the co-existence of opposite entities – electrons and protons,
the male and the female, day and night, spring and autumn,
urine and milk gushing forth from within the same body, and
104
Conclusion
so forth. It houses complex self-sustaining systems and

natural cycles for recycling, say, nutrients in ecosystems. It
maintains efficient means to meaningful ends; consider
pollination and production of seeds to vegetation, achieved
through numerous agents timely and effectively working
together. It provides a benevolent home, or rather a womb,
fine-tuned for not only sentient but intelligent life, capable of
appreciating all its wonders. Even seemingly dreadful and
destructive phenomena within it, such as lightning and
supernovas, pave way to new worlds. Such a spectacular
enterprise evidently demands massive intellectual input,
planning, prescience, prudence, power, authority,
supervision, and diligence. And all this is impossible without
knowledge, wisdom, will, and volition – the attributes of a
mind. Hence, our universe inevitably points beyond itself to
a magnificent mind of an omniscient and omnipotent
creator.80
Interestingly, TGD’s creation hypothesis can be compared
with the theory of evolution by natural selection. The latter
is often cited to claim that it has explained away the so-called
‘apparently miraculous design’ of the biological world,
thereby sidestepping the need for a creator (See TGD, 165).
The theory, however, only describes how diverse life-forms
may have evolved from a primitive self-replicating creature,
under the influence of natural selection. That creature, like
the primitive vacuum-energy, itself requires an explanation
in the first place. Not only it needs to be explained how it
came into existence (i.e., the process adopted therefor) but,
also, who brought it about (i.e., the efficient/agent cause
80
See Ghamidi 2018b, 92-93 & 99-101 and Islahi 2007, 183-210.
105
involved). Why the latter? Most evidently because at the

heart of any living creature lies genetic material, encoded
with ‘complex specified information’ – the information that
translates into vital structures and functions of life. The
mechanism exactly mimics an advanced language, involving
syllabary, codes, syntax, and semantics. Since we know of no
other source of such language but mind (intelligence), the
conclusion is quite obvious (Andrews 2012, 173-192).
Secondly, just like in TGD’s hypothesis, numerous pre-
requisites without which any such evolution is impossible are
taken for granted while doing away with God. These
requisites include, for example, the potential ingrained
within matter to evolve into entities necessary for the
existence of life – water, carbon, enzymes, nucleic acids, and
nutrients to name a few. Then, all these things turned out to
be perfectly complementary to produce, maintain, and
replicate life through astounding mechanisms. Similarly,
there happened to be a universe with conditions finely tuned
for the existence and evolution of life. This fine-tuning is so
extreme that much of it is beyond human conception and can
only be mathematically dealt with. Since it emanates from
unfolding of the inherent potentiality of
matter/energy/space, it was this potentiality that needed to
be fine-tuned at the outset. And that makes our universe a
miracle of foresight and prescience.
Thirdly, just like the evolution of cosmos, biological
evolution81 and its wonderful end-products cannot be
81
The word ‘biological evolution’ is used here as an all-
encompassing term, referring to all the processes involved in the
origin and diversification of species, starting from dead matter.
106
Conclusion
explained away in terms of physics and chemistry alone. The

mechanism manifestly points to the involvement of a mindful
agent. Suppose we come across some self-assembling
automatic-manufacturing-plant on a remote planet, or
instructions for synthesising novel bio-molecules encoded in
a radio-signal from the outer space, or something as simple
as a few animal drawings inside a hitherto unexplored cave.82
Before thinking of any physical/chemical analyses, would
these things not immediately compel us to seek a mental
agency for their explanation? Those who think not may
corroborate their case by creating not a universe, not even a
living being but, perhaps, something as humble as Conway’s
Game of Life83 (or anything worth considering for that
matter), without involving mental/intellectual input. The
desperation of Lennox (2009, 210), therefore, is quite
understandable when he writes:
‘Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to
mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some
people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to
prefer the first to the second.’
82
Lennox 2009, 41-44, 175-176 & 180
83
See Chapter 5.
107
Epilogue: God and His Grand
Scheme
We embarked upon a fascinating voyage into Stephen

Hawking’s universe (or rather multiverse) with an
anticipation to discover how the new physics has done away
with God. With each passing mile, however, as darkness
slowly turned to light, we became more and more certain
that we were heading toward the same grand designer we
were told to leave behind in our outmoded universe. It is
time to say goodbye to Hawking’s universe which, after all,
turned out to be the exact opposite of godless. We can now
return to our conventional universe and embrace the
conventional wisdom with even more conviction, suggesting
that creatureliness is so profoundly interweaved with us and
our universe that it is impossible to avoid a personal creator.
This proposition, however, further raises some critical
questions: Who is that creator? Is there only one or many?
Why is the creator hidden? What is the purpose of it all?
What does the creator wish to achieve with pain, suffering,
disease, and death? As Feynman (2005, 34) pointed out in
The Meaning of it All, ‘no discussion can be made of moral
values, of the meaning of life and so on, without coming to
the great source of systems of morality and descriptions of
meaning, which is in the field of religion’.84 We shall,
84
Feynman was not a believer, nor am I quoting him here as such.
However, whether one is satisfied with the answers provided by
religion or not, the point he is making is an important one, i.e., the
ultimate questions are beyond the domain of science and belong
elsewhere.
108
Epilogue
therefore, next see what religion has to say about these

questions and analyse some major criticisms hurled at that.
The Meaning of it All

As Feynman alluded, the ultimate questions are beyond the
scope of science and belong to the realm of metaphysics and
religion. That, however, does not, as the so-called ‘scientism’
suggests, imply that these are beyond reason and evidence,
too.
As we saw, we can infer from our existence and that of the
universe the presence of an all-powerful, all-knowing
creator. That creator has endowed us, too, with curious and
intelligent minds, capable of making such inferences and
unravelling the mysteries of our universe. If so, then it is very
hard to conceive why such a creator would not communicate
with us, introduce himself, and answer the all-important
questions, beyond the reach of our science.
We, the followers of Abrahamic religion, believe – based on
rational arguments and evidence – that our Creator has
indeed spoken to us, introduced Himself, and revealed the
ultimate purpose of His Grand Design. As in any field, there
may be differences in details, but the basic message of
revealed religion is unequivocal, namely that our Creator is a
just God, who has made the prevalence of justice incumbent
upon Himself at the end of this temporary world. That is what
is referred to as the Day of Judgement, when the fate of all
humans shall be impartially decided based on their moral
conduct. Alluding to that, the Quran says:
109
‘Have you assumed that We85 created you without any

purpose and you will not be brought back to Us?’ [Know,]
then, [that] God is sublimely exalted [to indulge in anything
purposeless], the ultimate Sovereign; there is no god but He,
Lord of the noble throne! (23:115-116)
‘We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is in
between for play and fun. [It does not behove God to have
done so, but even] if We had willed to indulge in a pastime,
We would have produced it from [what is] with Us86, if such
had been Our will at all!’ (21:16-17)
‘[He is the One] who created death and life to test [and thus
show] which of you is best in conduct. And He is the Mighty
[so evil-doers cannot get away from Him], truly Forgiving [for
those deserving his love and forgiveness].’ (67:2)
‘When the earth is shaken with an indescribable quake. And
when the earth throws out [all] its contents [especially, the
dead and the evidence buried therein against criminals]. And
humanity cries out, ‘What is [wrong] with it?’ That day it will
relate all its chronicles, for your Lord will have directed it [to
do so]. That day humankind will come forward, cut off from
one another [i.e., without any helper or intercessor], to be
shown their [past] deeds. So, whoever would have done an
atom's weight87 of good shall see it, and whoever would have
85
In Arabic, plural pronouns are used for singular nouns to express
respect or eminence. Some other languages also share this stylistic
feature, for instance, German, Urdu, and French. In English, we
have the so-called ‘royal we’ for this purpose.
86
I.e., rather than making humans and other sentient creatures a
victim of such a play.
87
The word translated as ‘atom’ is ‘dharrah’; literally, it refers to an
110
Epilogue
done an atom's weight of evil shall see it [too].’ (99:1-8)

‘Beware of the Day when you shall be returned to God; then,
every human shall be paid in full for whatever [good or evil]
they earned [in the worldly life], and no one will be wronged.’
(2:281)88
A petty purpose of a great God?
Against this purpose, it is argued that humankind, compared
to the size and age of the universe, is so infinitesimal and
insignificant that it seems absurd that God, if any, would be
concerned about their morality and the ultimate dominance
of justice.
Such reasoning, being pessimistic and overly-materialistic,
completely misses the point. Humans are not lumps of
matter to be compared with the size and age of the material
universe. They are intellectual beings, entrusted with a will
and a sophisticated aesthetic as well as a moral sense. As
such, they are far superior than anything else in the known
universe and a masterpiece of creation. If our universe has
achieved its culmination in anything, it is the blend of physical
and spiritual being of humans. Therefore, what should come
as a surprise is not concern but indifference of any creator
toward their masterpiece.
Judgement – an objectionable idea?
Similarly, some dislike the idea of judgement – moral-based
reward and retribution. This dislike, however, is completely
infinitesimal speck of dust.

88
Although many resources are consulted for the English
translation of the Quranic verses, their meaning and interpretation
are based on Ghamidi (2018a) and Islahi (2009).
111
unjustified:
The foundations of such judgement are deeply ingrained in
human nature. We have a strictly dichotomous perception of
good and evil, where good is immediately appreciated and
evil reproached by our conscience. Accordingly, we cherish
justice and show antipathy to injustice. Thus, whenever we
form a society, these proclivities are expressed as an
inevitable component of our social fabric (Ghamidi 2006b).
So, never do we like to treat alike, for instance, the faithful
and the unfaithful spouse, the obedient and the disobedient
child, the good and the poor student, the competent and the
incompetent employee, the martyr and the traitor, or the
philanthropist and the serial-killer. What would we make of
a jury deciding to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Hitler or a
court of law sending Sir Alexander Fleming to jail for
discovering penicillin? On what basis, then, can anyone
blame God for not treating the good and the wicked alike?
Keeping in view such human nature, the Quran sceptically
wonders:
[You suppose that the Judgement Day will never come.
What!] Shall We treat the obedient ones and the criminals
alike! What is amiss with you? How [ill] do you judge! (68:35-
36)
Eternal retribution?
Perhaps, it is the idea of eternal damnation for trivial sins that
is understandably hard to swallow. The idea, however, is but
a parody of religion. Only criminals of the worst kind are
threatened with such punishment, who deserve no mercy. As
per the Quran, they are such who resolutely decide to rebel
against the Almighty and go on to commit horrendous crimes
112
Epilogue
for petty reasons, such as satisfying their ego, lust, or avarice

(Ghamidi 2006b). Rather than acknowledging their Creator’s
countless favours, leading a righteous life, and paving their
way to the eternal life promised to the righteous, they
choose to do the opposite.
One example, repeatedly occurring in the Quran, is of those
who violently persecuted or slayed prophets, even after
recognising them as ambassadors of God. The Quran (6:20-
28) tells that when punishment will be shown to such
criminals, they will implore God to give them another chance.
But their plea shall be rejected, for they will be lying – ‘even
if they were to be brought back [to the worldly life], they
would revert to what they were forbidden from’. And that is
because their hearts were well-aware of truth and
consequences of rejecting it earlier in the worldly life, too. To
them, God sent most magnanimous and benevolent
messengers with irrefutable signs and evidence. But they
kept on rejecting, reviling, and ridiculing them, blinded by the
love of the material world, personal interests, power, wealth,
malice, arrogance, and the like. Therefore, even if they were
given another chance, that would be to no avail. As they
rejected other indisputable evidence from God, including
miracles, they would also reject their witnessing of the
hellfire as, say, nothing but a nightmare and continue in their
rebellion against God (Islahi 2009, vol. 3, 36-37).89
89
At another place, the Quran (23:105-111) reports the following
dialogue, to be taken place on the Judgement Day between God
and the Meccan Polytheists:
‘[It will be said to them,] “Were My messages not recited to you, but
you kept on rejecting them?” They will cry, “Our Lord, our ill-fate
113
No doubt, all such sins and crimes take place in a temporal

world, but their magnitude and effects are such that defy all
our yardsticks and, thus, demand unimaginably great or, at
times, eternal retribution (Ghamidi 2006b). As another
concrete example, consider those responsible for genocide,
horrific war-crimes, and nuclear assault during the World
War II, wherein millions of people were slaughtered and
survivors were permanently damaged – owing to the death
of loved-ones, sexual assault, humiliation, loss of body parts,
radiation effects (incl. genetic damage and defective
offspring), mental disorders, and so on. What can be a just
requital for that, except immeasurably great damnation?
Such an example can help us readily relate to and understand
the acuteness of some crimes. Nonetheless, even for such
extreme crimes, everlasting retribution cannot be justified,
for they are committed against temporal beings and their
requital is still possible. But what can redeem the sin of
insolently rebelling against God, without remorse? If justice
be done, nothing less than eternal retribution! This might be
hard for a materialistic mind to understand; however, a
spiritual mind – although even best of them can only slightly
took hold of us, and we really were a people astray! Our Lord, take
us out of this [fire once]. If we ever return [to denial], we would truly
be wrongdoers.” He will respond, “Away with you! Remain therein,
and do not speak to Me! Verily, there were those of My servants,
too, who would pray, ‘Our Lord! We have believed, so forgive us and
have mercy on us, for You are the best of the merciful!’ But you
made them a target of ridicule to the point where it made you
forget to be mindful of Me, and you went on laughing at them.
Today, I have rewarded them for their perseverance, and it is they
who have succeeded.”
114
Epilogue
appreciate the eminence of God – starts to shiver while

thinking of the gravity of this sin. It is defiance against the
One who is Originator of everything, Lord of the known and
the unknown, the ultimate, most-honourable, most-exalted,
perfect, incomparable, omniscient, omnipotent, omnificent,
and omnitemporal – eternal.
Yet, at one place, the Quran indicates that God may show
mercy to even such arrogant rebels. That is because, unlike
His reward, His punishment is a threat, not a promise
(Ghamidi 2018b, 195).90 So, the Almighty certainly has a right
to mitigate their punishment out of grace or, sooner or later,
put an end to it by turning them into dust and ashes:
‘Those who [by their deeds] will have brought wretchedness
upon themselves will enter the fire, where they will bawl and
bray. They will abide in it as long as the heavens and the earth
[of that world] remain, unless your Lord wills otherwise.91
Your Lord does whatever He wills.’ (Quran 11:106-107)
As for those who do not deliberately rebel against God, He is
most loving, compassionate, and forgiving. If they avoid
90
As we saw, however, the Quran emphasises that, on the Day of
Judgement, ultimate justice shall prevail. So, the mercy and
forgiveness of God under discussion here and mentioned
elsewhere only pertains to transgressions done against God. As for
crimes committed against fellow humans, they shall not be forgiven
unless forgiven by the victims (Ghamidi 2008).
91
The next verse (11:108) reveals that the heavens and the earth
of that new world will remain forever, since the Garden of God –
an everlasting gift promised to the righteous – will also be a part of
that. The indication of God’s mercy and forgiveness, therefore, lies
in the words ‘unless your Lord wills otherwise’ (Ghamidi, pers.
comm).
115
major sins, He forgives their minor wrongs (Quran 53:32).

And even if they commit a serious offense, the Quran offers
them the following hope:
‘Your Lord has taken it on Himself to be merciful: if any of you
foolishly committed evil, and afterwards repented and
mended his ways, God is most merciful and ever
affectionate.’ (6:54)
‘O My devotees who have harmed yourselves [by sinning], do
not despair of God’s mercy. [If you repent and make amends]
God shall forgive all [your] sins. No doubt, He is All-merciful,
Ever-Affectionate.’ (39:53)
On the positive side, the Quran repeatedly asserts that God
is most appreciative of those who listen to their conscience
and do good: submit to truth, show patience, uphold justice,
remain obedient to God and kind to parents, fulfil the rights
of relatives, free slaves, feed the poor, safeguard the wealth
of orphans, respond to evil with goodness, give their lives up
for noble purposes, and so forth. For them, God shall open
the doors of everlasting heaven, conferring such honour and
bounties upon them that no eye has ever seen, no ear has
ever heard, and no mind has ever perceived (Al-Bukhari
1997, vol. 9, no. 7498).
An unjust accountability?
The test we are put into demands submission to truth and
living by it. But the truth does not become apparent to
everyone likewise, nor do all of us have an equal opportunity
to act accordingly. Humans have a wide disparity in their
circumstances, capabilities, interests, habits, knowledge,
wisdom, and so on. If so, then how can they all be held
answerable likewise? They are not. As per the Quran, their
116
Epilogue
accountability is as individual and just as one may expect

from a wise and merciful God:
1. The Quran divides humans in three major groups as
regards their accountability. The first group comprises
those who would somehow remain unaware of God’s
message or receive it in such a form that would not
convince their hearts. The second group consists of those
who, after receiving this message, would become aware
of its veracity. Finally, the third group includes those who
would receive God’s message, directly or indirectly, via
the last messenger Muhammad and become certain of its
veracity (Ghamidi 2015b).
People of the first group will be answerable about two
things only, namely whether they 1) acknowledged their
creator and sustainer, and 2) led an ethical life (Quran
91:7-10 & 7:172-174)92. Regarding 1, each of us can
readily perceive that our self and the universe are being
meticulously created. As such, they constantly bear
witness to and remind us of a creator. ‘A creator’ not
‘creators’, the Quran insists, because our nature is
monotheistic, predisposing our minds to and being
satisfied by the idea of one supreme being. This
predisposition is so strong that even among many
assumed partner-gods of polytheistic mythologies, the
greatest happens to be only one. Regarding 2, the idea of
good and evil has always been there in all known periods
of human history. Such universality, tells the Quran (91:7-
10), emanates from human nature, into which the latent
92
See commentary on these verses in Ghamidi 2018a. For a
detailed discussion on this topic, see Islahi 2004 and 2007.
117
awareness of good and evil is inbred. It is such awareness

that in turns manifests as the voice of our individual and
collective conscience. This implies that it should be
possible to hold any human at any time and place
accountable for their evil conduct. And that is exactly so.
Suppose a man murdered an innocent individual at some
place in the year 3000 BC and got away with that. If the
murderer is somehow resurrected and evidence becomes
available against him, it will still be possible to prosecute
him in a court of law and penalise him for his crime. No
one can refer to such prosecution as unjust. Similar is the
case of those who will one day be subjected to God’s
judgement, even if they remained unaware of that.93
People of the second group, in addition, will be asked
whether they duly believed in the theistic God, as
introduced by messengers, and the Day of Judgement.
Besides, they will not only be answerable for their deeds
as per the universal moral code but also as per laws and
principles given by their messenger(s) (Quran 2:62 &
5:44).
Finally, people of the third group will, in addition, be
asked whether they acknowledged Muhammad (‫ )ﷺ‬as a
messenger of God and lived their lives according to his
93
However, the Quran (33:72) tells that humankind has been
subjected to the test of this world with their consent. At more than
one places, the Quran refers to certain covenants which God made
with humankind before sending them to this world. The
remembrance of these covenants, however, has been removed
from our memories, pro tempore, for we could not be tested
otherwise.
118
Epilogue
teachings.94 This shows that the accountability of all

humans will not be identical but subjected to their
knowledge and understanding.
2. Regarding unintentional errors, lapses under some
coercion, misdeeds due to ignorance or
misunderstanding, excesses out of helplessness, and even
expression of disbelief to protect one’s life, the Quran
explicitly states that there will be no accountability.95
People shall, therefore, only be indicted for their
deliberate transgressions, done with the awareness of
indulgence in evil.
3. The Quran (2:286) asserts that ‘God does not burden any
soul more than what it can bear’. Based on this principle,
demands of religion are not the same from the rich and
the poor, the sick and the healthy, the traveller and the
local, the freeman and the slave, the man and the woman,
the child and the adult, and so forth.
4. The Quran stresses that, on the Judgement Day, God shall
establish through evidence that His judgement is just.
Thus, such evidence will be produced against the
wrongdoers that they will feel impelled to admit their
guilt (Quran 67:11). As a principle, the Quran proclaims:
‘No injustice shall be done to [anyone even] by as much
as a hair’s breadth.’ (17:71)
‘We shall place the scales of justice for the Resurrection
Day, so no soul shall be wronged in the least. And if there
94
This is a recurrent topic in the Quran.
95
See, for example, 5:89, 24:33, 33:5, 17:15, 2:173, 16:106,
respectively. For an explanation of these verses, see Ghamidi 2018a
and Islahi 2009.
119
is [even] the weight of a mustard seed [of good or evil of

someone], We shall bring it forth. And sufficient are We
for the accountability [of people].’ (21:47)
Not only this but, as we saw in the previous section, the
Quran is explicit that anyone who would deserve God’s
mercy or have a genuine excuse to put before Him shall
not be disappointed.
To conclude, therefore, the Quran’s conception of
accountability is highly individualised and just. Next, in light
of God’s Grand Scheme, we shall try to seek answers of the
other important questions raised at the start of this chapter,
namely why God is hidden and why there is so much evil in
the world.
If there is a God, why is He hiding from us?
The answer to this question directly lies in the very test of
morality we are subjected to. To be explicit, our morality is
reflected in our thought and action, both of which are being
tested. This implies that, in this test, only those will succeed
who purify their thought (knowledge) and action, i.e., listen
to their conscience, let evidence lead them to truth, and
adhere to good moral-conduct despite having a choice to do
the opposite.96 But if God were before our eyes, neither our
knowledge nor action could be tested, for the freedom of
choice would have been virtually eliminated (Ghamidi
2016a).
However, we could be put into a test like that of prophets.
Although God is not visible to them; at least, He (indirectly)
communicates with them. But the Quran and other
96
See the Quran 4:135, 103, 2:256, 76:3, and 91:7-10.
120
Epilogue
Scriptures reveal that, in such a case, the test justifiably

becomes very demanding, and only humans of extraordinary
qualities (prophets) can fulfil its requirements (ibid). Thus,
our test, like our universe, is also ‘fine-tuned’ according to
our state of affairs.
No doubt, a different test could be designed, for instance,
one in which God would have been visible, but then many
parameters would have been different, too. For instance,
humans might have required no intellect then, for believing
upon seeing is what animals can also readily do (unless there
exist anti-realists among them). One of the basic functions of
intellect is to infer unknown realities from known facts,
whether it be the inference of, say, subatomic particles from
their effects or that of a personal creator from the presence
of created objects. The latter is so obvious that the demand
of seeing or, say, hearing the creator seems absurd. God,
however, did not leave our intellect to that but provided it
with additional evidence to ascertain that the inferred
creator is He – the theistic God (See Hassan 2018a).
In the same vein, some question the very scheme of test and
go on to dictate God as to what He should or should not have
done. Such objections are, for one, futile, for they cannot
change anything if we are already amid a test. Furthermore,
they express arrogance and reveal one’s ignorance of
scantiness and limitations of human knowledge, especially in
metaphysical matters. The way forward, therefore, is to
focus our attention on the necessary metaphysical
information claimed to have been provided by God. If this
information does not satisfy our intuition, intellect, and
conscience, we have every right to reject it, as a myth. But if
it does, we would be in a great loss to show indifference to it
121
for any reason, be it that the world is not as we wish it to be

or we are not in a God-like position to understand everything.
If the promise of God is true, unlimited knowledge awaits us
anyway along with an opportunity to inquire Him whatever
we will (Ghamidi 2016a).
The Problem of Evil
The Grand Scheme of God also greatly helps us understand
the so-called ‘problem of evil’97. Those for whom this fleeting
world is all there is infer the non-existence of a theistic God
from injustice, bloodshed, misery, and the like and bad
‘design’ from disease, natural calamities, death, and so on.
From religious perspective, however, this world is not
designed on the principle of justice, well-being, and
perfection. That will be the cornerstone of the next
permanent-world, to be evolved from the raw-material
scattered around in the form of billions of galaxies (Quran
14:48). The present world, as discussed above, is a transitory
abode designed, at least as far as humans are concerned, for
the purpose of test. It is this purpose for which it is perfected
(Ghamidi 2015b). In light of this, let us take a closer look at
the problem of evil.
Evil may be categorised into human-generated evil and
natural evil. The first is an inevitable consequence of the test
to which God has subjected humankind. A pre-requisite for
this test is the free will of humans, which when exercised
creates both good as well as evil (Ghamidi 2016a). Such
materialisation of good and evil produces the concrete
97
Typically, i.e., if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-
compassionate, and all-just God, why is there injustice, suffering,
disease, natural disasters, death, and so on?
122
Epilogue
evidence based on which the righteous and the wrongdoers

shall be separated, and dealt with very differently on the
Judgement Day. Seen in this larger perspective, God’s
temporary allowance of human-generated evil cannot in fact
be labelled evil, since it has a greater, noble, and lasting
objective behind it: eternal ‘survival of the morally-fittest’
and the ultimate triumph of justice.98
Regarding natural evil in the form of suffering, disease,
death, tsunamis, and so on, it is also there for a reason: it is a
means through which humans are being tested. Essentially,
it is a test of patience and gratitude towards God. Patience is
tested by means of pain; gratitude and humility by pleasure,
health, affluence, power, and so on (Islahi 2009, vol. 5, 147).
The Quran (21:35) proclaims:
‘Every human is bound to taste death; We test you through
the bad and the good [things of life] to [empirically]
determine99 [the good and the evil of your hearts], and unto
Us you shall all return.’
98
As for those who will be doomed, they themselves are to be
blamed, not God. The aim of God’s scheme is not to punish
humans, but to bestow upon them His eternal blessings, based on
merit. Despite all the opportunities to achieve that – together with
extremely lenient, forgiving, and gracious nature of God – very
unfortunate are those who choose to transgress against Him and
His creatures. As discussed earlier, He might forgive transgressions
against Him but not against His creatures, for that will be sheer
injustice.
99
The word translated as ‘determine’ is ‘fitnah’, used for
‘examining’ or ‘evaluating’, just as a goldsmith evaluates the quality
of gold through assaying (Islahi 2009, vol. 5, 50).
123
At another place, the Quran (2:155), while addressing the

companions of Prophet Muhammad, says:
‘We shall certainly test you with some fear and hunger, and
loss of property, lives, and crops. But [Prophet], give good
news to those who patiently endure – who, when disaster
strikes them, say, ‘Surely we are God’s and to Him we shall
return.’
Similarly, the Quran (9:111) declares:
‘The truth is that God has purchased from the believers their
lives and wealth in exchange for Paradise – they fight in the
cause of God, so they kill and are killed. This is a true promise
binding on Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. And
who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So,
rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him. That is the
triumph supreme!’
The Quran alludes to many other greater goods that God
achieves by means of natural evils, some of which are as
under:
– To punish wicked nations
Natural calamities are unleashed to punish certain nations.
These nations include 1) those which after given dominance
by God plunge themselves into moral and intellectual
degradation100 and 2) those to which God sends His
messengers with extraordinary evidence, but they
obstinately reject to accept their call101 (Ghamidi 2018b, 119
100
See the Quran 13:11, 17:58 & 34:15-17.
101
This is a recurrent topic in the Quran; see Chapter 54 for a
summarised account of such punishments.
124
Epilogue
& 121-122).
Such a punishment per se is good in that it is a manifestation
of God’s justice. Besides, it carries a warning and a lesson for
other nations to keep from moral and intellectual depravity.
It also serves as a token of God’s greater judgement, to be
similarly taken place for the entire humankind one day.
Lastly, from one angle, such a punishment indeed brings
death and destruction, but from another, there is life,
freedom, peace, and prosperity in it for the victims of the
perished people.
– To remind, warn, and wake people from their slumber
Natural evils are also inflicted upon people to wake them
from their slumber of indifference toward bigger realities of
life, such as being mindful of God, fulfilling their
responsibilities toward fellow humans, and preparing for the
real-life after death. Death itself is a powerful tool to remind
people of the transitory nature of this world – a fact oft-
forgotten in the hustle and bustle of our daily lives (Ghamidi
2015a). Thus, an individual death serves as a powerful
reminder for the social circle of the deceased, whereas
collective death at the hands of tsunamis, plagues, volcanic
eruptions, famine, and other natural calamities is a loud
reminder for cities, nations, or even the entire world. Such
reminders, therefore, are not flaws in design, but very much
a part and parcel of it. Alluding to this purpose of natural evil,
C. S. Lewis (2015, 91) in his book The Problem of Pain writes:
‘Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in
our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our
pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.’
Various examples of such ‘shouts’ are found in the Quran and
125
other Scriptures, some of which are as under:

‘We inflicted years of drought and crop failure on Pharaoh’s
people, so that they might take heed. But when something
good would come their way, they said, “This is our due!” And
when something bad would come, they ascribed it to the evil
omen of Moses and those with him. Behold, their evil omen
was from God [as a result of their misdeeds], though most of
them did not realise that. They said, “We will not believe in
you, no matter what signs you produce to bewitch us.” So, We
let loose on them the flood, locusts, lice, frogs, and blood.
These were all signs, detailed [in Scriptures of the Israelites].
But they persisted in arrogance and were [indeed] a wicked
people. Whenever some punishment descended upon them,
they said, “Moses, pray to your Lord for us by virtue of the
promise He has made to you: if you relieve us of this penalty,
we will believe you and let the Children of Israel go with you.”
But every time We removed the penalty from them until a
term […] they broke their promise. So, We exacted retribution
from them: We drowned them in the sea, for they rejected
Our signs [including miracles] and remained heedless of
them.’ (Quran 7:130-136)
About the Israelites, the Quran (7:168) says:
‘And We tested them with blessings and misfortunes, so that
they might return [to righteousness].’
Similarly, about the Hypocrites of Medina, the Quran (9:126)
wonders:
‘Do they not see that they are tried [with affliction] once or
twice a year? Yet, they neither repent nor take heed.’
The Quran also cites positive examples in this regard
(Hameed 2008, 53-54). About Adam and Eve, it tells that
126
Epilogue
‘Satan made them slip from [the garden] and removed them
from the state [of bliss] they were in. […] Thereafter, Adam
learnt some words [of repentance] from his Lord and [as he
repented using them,] He accepted his repentance. Indeed,
He is Ever-Relenting, Ever- Affectionate!’ (2:36-37) Similarly,
the Quran tells that Prophet Jonah showed impatience in a
matter. Consequently, God inflicted on him the hardship of
being flung into the sea and swallowed by a large fish.
Thereupon, he cried out to His Lord, ‘There is no deity but
You, glory be to You! Verily, I was wrong.’ ‘Then,’ says the
Quran, ‘We heard his prayer and saved him from the anguish.
Thus do We save believers!’ (21:87-88 & 68:48-50)
Hardships, therefore, compel us to think and to rethink; learn
not to repeat the ill-deeds or bad decisions responsible for
our plights; return to God; become humbler and appreciative
of God’s bounties; show empathy towards others facing
similar difficulties; and so forth. However, for hearts which
become barren by obstinacy and persistent sinning, there
indeed is no opportunity or cure in such hardships.
The above discussion may also help us understand the case
of mentally retarded persons, inculpable children suffering
and dying from disease or hunger, those facing unbearable
situations, and the like. On the one hand, they serve to test
the attitudes of those around them while, on the other,
joltingly remind us of God’s favours and our powerlessness if
He decides to withdraw them (Ghamidi 2015b).102 It is these
102
As for the victims of such suffering, they are not subjected to
any test themselves, for ‘God does not burden any soul more than
its capacity’ (Quran 2:286). To compensate their transitory
suffering, it is beyond imagination what God has in His eternal
store, for He has promised that He shall compensate each soul with
127
favours – health, wealth, physical beauty, knowledge,

intellect, or power – that are often taken for granted.
Consequently, they cause people to forget to be mindful of
God, feel invincible, and spread evil on His earth.
– To expiate sins of good people
The Quran (3:195) also reveals that, through hardships, God
expiates sins of good people, so that they may become
eligible to be saved from the punishment of the Hereafter
(Hameed 2008, 41). Prophet Muhammad said:
‘No fatigue, nor disease, nor sorrow, nor sadness, nor hurt,
nor distress befalls a Muslim, nor even pricking of a thorn, but
God expiates some of their sins for that.’
– To raise the ranks of those devoted to God and set excellent
examples for others
Those devoted to God are also inflicted with pain and misery
so that, through their perseverance and unshakable faith,
God may raise their ranks and make them worthy of
achieving the best, i.e., utmost love and extraordinary
favours from God. In the Quran, such people are presented
the best in the Hereafter, and ‘none shall be wronged even by as

much as a hair’s breadth’ (Quran 4:77).
It cannot be emphasised enough that pains and pleasures of this
world, taken far too seriously by us, are nothing in the eyes of the
Quran compared to those of the Hereafter, neither in value nor in
duration (See, e.g., 4:77, 23:112-114 & 29:64). To draw people’s
attention to the totality of God’s scheme, Prophet Muhammad
compared the Hereafter with an ocean and this world with water
sticking to one’s forefinger as it is dipped into that ocean (Muslim
2007, vol. 7, no. 7197).
128
Epilogue
as role-models for humanity. Seen thus, all pains of this

fleeting world seem worthwhile to believing men and women
(Hameed 2008, 51-52).
For such purpose, God took away everything from Prophet
Job – family, wealth, health, and status. But when he
remained steadfast in his devotion to God, He gave him twice
as much as he had before ‘as a mercy from [God], and a
lesson to all who understand’. At the same place, the Quran
(38:43-44) lauds him as follows:
‘Verily, We found him patient [in every trial]. How excellent a
devotee [of Ours]! Ever did he turn [to Us]!’
Similarly, when Prophet Abraham successfully passed severe
tests and trials, God made him ‘His friend’ and declared him
‘a leader for humankind’ (Quran: 4:125 & 2:12). The Quran
repeatedly presents him as an example for people to imitate.
Likewise, God sent trials after trials to Prophet Muhammad
and refers to his endurance and dedication as ‘an excellent
model’ for believers (Quran 33:21).
– To safeguard people from greater evil
The Quran also reveals that by means of minor trials or
hardships, God protects people from greater adversities. This
is one of the morals of the fascinating story of Prophet Moses
and the Guide, narrated in Chapter 18 (60-82) of the Quran.
The story reveals near-sightedness of Moses, being a mortal
with limited knowledge, and far-sightedness of the Guide,
most probably an angel working under God’s command.
Moses accompanied him on a journey so that Moses could
learn how God actively manages the affairs of this world, with
utmost wisdom. This wisdom often skips our sight because of
our limited knowledge and perspective. We take things at
129
face value, viewing them with respect to their apparent,

immediate benefit and harm. God, on the other hand, has a
larger perspective in view and, thus, has His eye on the
ultimate good or evil of things, i.e., with respect to their end-
results.
In the story, Moses and the Guide first boarded a vessel, into
which the Guide deliberately made a hole. Upon that, Moses
immediately protested, ‘Have you done this to drown its
people? You have certainly done a terrible thing!’ The Guide
replied, ‘Did I not tell you that you would not be able to bear
with me patiently?’ As he said so at the start of their journey,
he had added something important, saying, ‘And how can
you be patient with what is beyond your [realm of]
knowledge?’
During their time together, the Guide similarly did things that
Moses found hard to make sense of and expressed
resentment about. Before they parted ways, however, the
Guide enlightened Moses by revealing to him the rationale
behind each of his actions. Regarding the hole he made, he
disclosed that ‘the vessel belonged to some poor people who
made their living from the river, and I [with God’s command]
caused a defect in it, for there was a [tyrant] king ahead of
them who seizes every [intact] vessel by force.’ Thus our
benevolent God, in the guise of certain minor evils, works for
our benefit and saves us from greater harms (See Ghamidi
2018a, vol. 3, 148-156).103
103
Sometimes, however, opposite is the case, i.e., something good
is given to wicked people in which lurks the curse and wrath of God.
About the Hypocrites of Medina, for example, the Quran (3:178)
says:
130
Epilogue
– Infliction of evil upon the wicked to create good for others

Among other things in the above story, the Guide also killed
an innocent boy, to which Moses similarly protested. At the
end, however, the Guide revealed that the parents of that
boy were people of faith. But he was going to become an evil
man, who would bring them much grief and trouble. So, God
intended to rid them from him and grant them a virtuous,
obedient, and loving child instead.
Although God grants extraordinary strength and endurance
to His faithful men and women to fight hardships, the death
of the boy must have been a hard trial for parents.
Furthermore, from the boy’s perspective, his killing could be
labelled evil. But as for the consequences, it was a blessing in
disguise for his virtuous parents.104 Since they were faithful,
the pain of losing their child was also, in fact, a blessing, for
their patience must have brought them closer to God and His
eternal blessings in the Hereafter. So, in evil happening to a
wicked (or a potentially wicked) person, there might be a
favour for others. Likewise, as we discussed above, in the
destructions of wicked nations, there is life for their victims
and other meek nations.
In a similar vein, the Quran draws our attention to greater
goods hidden behind some of its seemingly violent
‘And let not these disbelievers think that Our respite is better for
their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their
sins, and [in the end] a disgraceful chastisement awaits them.’
104
As for what will be the fate of that boy in the Hereafter, God
knows best. Justice, however, can be done to him in many ways, for
instance, by not resurrecting him at all or by giving him another
worldly life to fully express his goodness/evilness.
131
injunctions, like the law of retaliation (“an eye for an eye”)

and warfare:
‘There is [security of] life for you in [the law of] retaliation,
O people of reason, so that you may become mindful [of the
limits set by God].’ (2:179)
‘If God did not repel some people by means of others [through
warfare], monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques,
where God’s name is much invoked, would have been
demolished. (22:40)
– To nurture people’s qualities and virtues, and make them
achieve extraordinary things
Misfortunes may initially bring about grief, frustration,
discouragement, and depression but, sooner or later,
become a source of learning, wisdom, strength, and
resilience. They propel our evolution toward excellence,
hone our qualities and virtues, prepare us to meet new
challenges, bring out the best in us and, ultimately, enable us
to achieve extraordinary things (Hameed 2008, 45-52).
Regarding the hardships surrounding Prophet Muhammad’s
life, the Quran (94:1-6) says:
‘Have we not opened up your heart for you, relieved you of
the burden breaking your back, and raised high for you your
repute?
So, [rest assured,] with this difficulty [you are facing], there
[similarly] awaits a great ease. With this difficulty, there
awaits a great ease.’
The first paragraph reminds the Prophet how God wiped out
previous hardships of his life, as they achieved their purpose
of opening up his heart for wisdom and insight. The next
132
Epilogue
paragraph reassures him that God would similarly turn his

current miseries into ease, after they would achieve their
intended objectives.
What is referred to as ‘the burden breaking [his] back’ was
twofold: 1) Before being granted messengership, the Prophet
remained extremely anxious for the guidance of true religion,
a large portion of which was lost by the progeny of Abraham.
For that, he left no stone unturned, devoted himself to God,
and invoked Him day and night. Eventually, when God had
ripened his heart through a quarter-century’s trial, He not
only showed him the right path but entrusted him with the
responsibility of messengership. 2) That led him to his next,
even harder trial. Unlike him, his people had no longing for
acquiring such guidance and, hence, showed no aptitude to
embrace and cherish it. For more than ten years, he strained
every nerve to convince them to pay heed, but to little avail.
It only increased their hatred and barbarity toward him and
his companions.
Nevertheless, these testing and extremely aggrieving
circumstances made the Prophet wiser and stronger,
prepared him for new challenges, amplified his dedicated
efforts, brought his exemplary magnanimity and goodness to
light, and paved the way for the success of his mission. Thus,
his struggle first bore fruit outside Mecca, where God raised
his reputation high and gave currency to his message, as
mentioned in the first paragraph. Through such ease after
every hardship, ultimately, God fulfilled His promise of the
dominance of truth in and around the Arabian Peninsula
(Quran 9:33), which for most part of the Prophet’s career
seemed unachievable.
Similarly, for all of us, life is a vicissitude of hardship and ease,
133
where the first drives our evolution and the second

reinvigorates us to meet the next challenge. It can be
compared with a staircase of mental evolution, where each
step upward is an edifying hardship followed by a period of
ease (the tread). At the end of this staircase lies the ultimate
success for a believer – the everlasting life of bliss in God’s
company (See Islahi 2009, vol. 9, 426-429).
The rationales behind apparent evils extracted from the
Quran above by no means constitute an exhaustive list. There
may be countless others, some permanently hidden from our
narrow frame of reference. Nevertheless, these purposes
and principles provide us wisdom and insight with which to
view all such evils. A case in point may be animal suffering at
the hands of wildfires, earthquakes, cyclones, diseases, and
so on. Although we know that fear and pain have survival
value and that animals have inbuilt mechanisms to cope with
pain, we find ourselves unable to satisfactorily explain their
suffering, especially one that persists. Seen in light of the
Quran, that is because we are not fully aware of their
purpose of creation and what role such suffering plays
therein. Before such information at hand, therefore, it would
be unfair to jump to conclusions and suspect God’s goodness.
To make matters clearer, let us look at an everyday example.
Consider a mother forcibly waking her little girl every day
before sunrise and pushing her out of the house in bitter
cold. It may seem evil to the little girl; however, when she
would realise the importance of school with age, she would
eventually acknowledge it as an act of care, wisdom, and
dutifulness (Ghamidi 2016a). Similarly, although we cannot
yet make sense of all data around us, we must not lose our
trust, hope, and faith in God. He deserves to be thought
134
Epilogue
about positively because of His countless blessings upon us,

myriad good things He has created, and all the good purposes
He has revealed (or we have discovered) behind the ups and
downs of this world. After all, who would have thought that
an event as catastrophic as the big bang could produce a
universe as marvellous as ours and, similarly, something as
cataclysmic as supernovas could turn out to be furnaces for
producing the essential elements of life?
Conclusion
The upshot of the above discussion is that God is all-good and
intends no evil; whatever He does or allows to happen has a
good, greater purpose behind it. While talking about the
Hypocrites of Medina, the Quran (4:78-79), as a principle,
says:
‘And if success comes their way, they say, "This is from God,"
and if harm befalls them, they say, "This is from you
[Prophet]." Say, "All [things] are from God [for whatever
happens, happens with His permission]." What is [the matter]
with these people that they are not ready to understand
anything! Whatever good befalls you is from God, and
whatever evil befalls you is from yourself.’
The implication is that although no evil occurs without God’s
permission, He cannot be held responsible therefor. That is
because it is permitted for reasons attributable to humans,
such as to show them consequences of their evil deeds or bad
decisions, to rid them of some shortcoming of theirs, or to lay
bare the goodness or evil lurking in their hearts (Ghamidi
2018a, vol. 1, 522-523).
Here, we have to content ourselves with this brief
introduction of religious worldview, but the next crucial
135
question remains: what evidence does religion have for its

basic tenets, especially, the existence of God and the Day of
Judgement? That will be the topic of my next book. For now,
the reader is recommended to see Ghamidi 2018b (85-
200)105. In this brilliant work, the author has concisely but
comprehensively discussed arguments and evidence put
forth by the Quran to establish its metaphysics.
The Quest for truth

As a final remark, I would like to say that if it is truth we are
after (as many of us claim), then we ought to scrutinise our
religious texts also with the same zeal with which we have
scrutinised TGD’s narrative here. Especially, that ought to be
the case regarding interpretations which ask us to accept,
support, or do such things in God’s name that our hearts –
made in the image of God – feel aversion to. Such scrutiny is
also imperative to understand differences among revealed
religions and discover the truth.
According to the Bible, Judaism and Christianity are not
different religions, nor does the Quran presents Islam as a
new religion from a new God. The three religions are a sequel
of the same religion given, as per the Quran and the Bible, to
the parents of us all – Adam and Eve. That is why we find no
difference in their basic claim. As for interpretational
differences, they exist in all fields including natural sciences,
as we saw in this book, and must be decided by a critical
investigation.
105
An English translation of this work is also available: 2017. Islam:
A Comprehensive Introduction. Translated by Shehzad Saleem.
Lahore: Al-Mawrid.
136
Epilogue
To sincere seekers, the Bible and the Quran have the

following glad tidings to offer:
‘Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock
and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks
receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks,
the door will be opened.’ (Matthew 7:7-8; New International
Version)
‘He has ordained for you [O people] the religion He enjoined
upon Noah, and that which We have revealed to you [O
Muhammad], and that We enjoined upon Abraham, Moses,
and Jesus, [commanding], “Uphold the religion [in your lives],
and make no divisions in it.” What you call the polytheists to
[O Prophet] is unbearable for them. God chooses to draw to
Himself whoever He wills, and He guides those to Himself who
turn [to Him].’ (Quran 42:13)
137
Bibliography
Al-Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. 1997. Translation of the

Meanings of Sahīh Al-Bukhāri (9 vols). Translated by
Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Chicago: Kazi Publications
Incorporated.
Albert, David Z. "On the origin of everything: ‘A Universe
From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss." The New
York Times, Mar. 25, 2012. Available from:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-
universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html.
Andrews, Edgar. 2012. Who Made God? Searching for a
Theory of Everything. Darlington: EP Books.
Aquinas, Thomas. 2012. Compendium of Theology.
Translated by Cyril Vollert. Tacoma: Angelico Press.
Breakthrough Initiatives. 2017. Available from:
https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/about.
BioLogos. "Are gaps in scientific knowledge evidence for
God?" 2014. Available from:
https://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-
relationship-to-creation/god-of-the-gaps.
Campbell, Denis. "Stephen Hawking blames Tory politicians
for damaging NHS." The Guardian, Aug. 19, 2017.
Available from:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/18/ste
phen-hawking-blames-tory-politicians-for-damaging-nhs.
Chalmers, Alan F. 1999. What is this Thing Called Science?
(3rd ed). Buckingham: Open University Press.
138
Bibliography
Choi, Charles. "Brain tumour causes uncontrollable

paedophilia." New Scientist, Oct. 21, 2002. Available
from:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-
tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia/.
Collins, Francis S. 2007. The Language of God: A Scientist
Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press.
Coyne, Jerry A. "Of vice and men." The New Republic, vol.
222, no. 14, pp. 27-33, 2000.
Crick, Francis H. C. 1995. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The
Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: TouchStone.
Dennett, Daniel C., and Alvin Plantinga. 2011. Science and
Religion: Are They Compatible? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Davies, Paul. 1990. God and the New Physics. London:
Penguin Books.
Davies, Paul. "Is the universe a free lunch?" The Independent,
Mar. 3, 1996. Available from:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/is-
the-universe-a-free-lunch-1340153.html.
Dawkins, Richard. 1995. River out of Eden: A Darwinian View
of Life. London: Basic Books.
Douven, Igor. "Abduction." The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2017). Available from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/ab
duction/.
Durant, William J. 1950. The Age of Faith. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
139
Einstein, Albert. "Physics and reality." Translated by Jean

Piccard. Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 221, pp.
349-382, 1936.
Feynman, Richard P. 2017. The Character of Physical Law.
London: The MIT Press.
Feynman, Richard P. 2005. The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of
a Citizen-Scientist. New York: Perseus Books.
Fox, Kieran C. R., M. L. Dixon, S. Nijeboer, M. Girn, J. L.
Floman, M. Lifshitz, M. Ellamil, P. Sedlmeier, and K.
Christoff. "Functional neuroanatomy of meditation:
A review and meta-analysis of 78 functional
neuroimaging investigations." Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 65, pp. 208-228, 2016.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2009. "A discussion on determinism and
free will." In Ghamidi. Geo Television Network.
Available from:
https://javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/video/5aabdc87b951c
b6c099eb0bf.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2006a. "A discussion on the arguments for
the existence of God" (4 episodes). In Ghamidi. Geo
Television Network. Available from:
b6c099eb04f.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2008. "A discussion on the concept of
reward and punishment." In Ghamidi. Geo Television
Network. Available from:
b6c099eb0bf.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2006b. "A discussion on the Day of
Judgement" (2 episodes). In Ghamidi. Geo Television
Network. Available from:
140
Bibliography
b6c099eb093.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2018a. Al-Bayān (5 vols). Lahore: Al-
Mawrid.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2016a. "Arguments for the existence of
God" (4 episodes). In ’Ilm-o-Hikmat: Ghamidi kae
Sāth. Dunya News. Available from:
https://javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/video/5aabdbceb951c
b6c099eaad7.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2018b. Mīzān. Lahore: Al-Mawrid.
Ghamidi, Javed. "Miracles of prophets and modern science."
2016b. Available from https://youtu.be/USWPSSaxjB4.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2015a. "Q&A Session with Javed Ahmad
Ghamidi." Dallas, Texas. Al-Mawrid. Available from:
https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/video/5bb86a8f
1d66a9cb59e282db.
Ghamidi, Javed A. 2015b. "Q&A Session with Javed Ahmad
Ghamidi." Santa Clara, California. Al-Mawrid.
Available from:
https://www.javedahmedghamidi.org/#!/video/5bbdd069
70c61f925b41cc86.
Ghamidi, Javed A. "Unassailable knowledge." Translated by
Junaid Hassan. Renaissance, vol. 22, no. 12, 2012b
(Oct). Available from:
http://www.monthly-
renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=1338.
Goff, Philip. "Did the dying Stephen Hawking really mean to
strengthen the case for God?" The Guardian, May 07,
141
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/ma
y/07/stephen-hawking-god-multiverse-cosmology.
Guth, Alan H. 1998. The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for
a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. London: Vintage.
Guth, Alan H. "Eternal inflation." Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, vol. 950, pp. 66-82, 2001.
Hameed, Sajid. 2008. Ham par Mushkilayṇ Kiūṇ Ātī hayṇ.
Lahore: Al-Mawrid.
Hassan, Junaid. "A Quran-based argument for God: Insights
from Javed Ahmad Ghamidi." Renaissance, vol. 28,
no. 1, 2018a (Jan). Available from:
http://www.monthly-
Hassan, Junaid. "The Quran On Human Evolution: Insights
from Javed Ahmad Ghamidi." Renaissance, vol. 28,
no. 11, 2018b (Nov). Available from:
http://www.monthly-
Hawking, Stephen. 1998. A Brief History of Time. New York:
Bantam Books.
Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand
Design. London: Bantam Press.
Hölzel, Britta K., J. Carmody, M. Vangel, C. Congleton, S. M.
Yerramsetti, T. Gard, and Sara W. L. "Mindfulness
practice leads to increases in regional brain gray
matter density." Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging,
vol. 191, no. 1 , pp. 36-43, 2011.
Islahi, Amin E. 2004. Falsafay kae Bunyadī Masa’il. Lahore:
Farān Foundation.
142
Bibliography
Islahi, Amin E. 2007. Ḥaqīqat-i Shirk-o Tawḥīd. Lahore: Farān

Foundation, 2007.
Islahi, Amin E. 2009. Tadabbur-i Qur’ān (9 vols). Lahore:
Farān Foundation.
Jammer, Max. 2002. Einstein and Religion: Physics and
Theology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kaku, Michio. "Space bubble baths and the free universe."
http://bigthink.com/videos/a-universe-is-a-free-lunch.
Krauss, Lawrence M. 2012. A Universe from Nothing: Why
There is Something Rather than Nothing. New York:
Free Press.
Krauss, Lawrence M. "The accelerating expansion of the
universe and how we know its fate." 2009. Available
from https://youtu.be/-EilZ4VY5Vs.
Law, Stephen. 2006. The Philosophy Files. London: Orion
Children's Books.
Lennox, John C. 2009. God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried
God? Oxford: Lion Books.
Lennox, John C. 2011. God and Stephen Hawking: Whose
Design is it Anyway? Oxford: Lion Hudson.
Lewis, Clive S. 2015. The Problem of Pain. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Mason, Liam, E. Peters, S. C. Williams, and V. Kumari. "Brain
connectivity changes occurring following cognitive
behavioural therapy for psychosis predict long-term
recovery." Translational Psychiatry, vol. 7, e1001,
2017.
143
Medawar, Peter B. 1985. The Limits of Science. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.
Mumford, Stephen. 2004. Laws in Nature. Oxford: Routledge.
Mumford, Stephen, and Rani Lill Anjum. 2013. Causation: A
Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Muslim, Abul-Hussain. English Translation of Sahīh Muslim (7
vols). Translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab. Riyadh:
Darussalam, 2007.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2007. One World: The Interaction of
Science and Theology: West Conshohocken:
Templeton Press.
Polkinghorne, John C. 2010. The Polkinghorne Reader:
Science, Faith, and the Search for Meaning. Edited by
Thomas J. Oord. West Conshohocken: Templeton
Press.
Sagan, Carl. "Extraterrestrial intelligence: An international
petition." Science, vol. 218, no. 4571, p. 426, 1982.
Ward, Keith. 2008. The Big Questions in Science and Religion.
West Conshohocken: Templeton Press.
Wheeler, John A., and Kenneth W. Ford. 2000. Geons, Black
Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Saleem, Shehzad. 2012. Collection of Quran: A Critical and
Historical Study of Al-Farahi’s View. Lahore: Al-
Mawrid.
Smith, Wolfgang. "Response to Stephen Hawking’s physics-
as-philosophy." Sophia: The Journal of Traditional
Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 5-48, 2011.
144
Bibliography
Yasushi, Ishida. "Does the placebo effect change our

understanding of the causal relationship between
mind and body." Journal of International Philosophy,
No. 2. pp. 339- 351. 2013.
Zagzebski, Linda. "Foreknowledge and free will." The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017).
Available from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/fre
e-will-foreknowledge/.
145
Junaid Hassan has a B.Sc. in Computer Science, an M.Phil. in System
Dynamics, and a Ph.D. in Systems
Microbiology. Besides, he studied biological
physics, Norwegian, academic writing, and
philosophy at Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, Norway, and German at
Mannheimer Abendakademie, Germany. He
completed various courses in Islamic studies
from Al-Mawrid, Pakistan. Currently, he is
carrying out secondary research on Islam and
Hamiduddin Farahi’s theory of knowledge, under Javed Ahmed
Ghamidi’s supervision. He is particularly interested in
interpretations of the Quran, philosophy of science, science and
religion, theology, epistemology, and ontology.
A foundation for Islamic Research & Education
51-K, Model Town, Lahore 54700, Pakistan

Tel: +92 42 35865145
www.al-mawrid.org
146

A Critical Review of Stephen Hawking&#39;s Godless Universe by Junaid Hasan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Stephen Hawking&#39;s Godless Universe by Junaid Hasan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF

Junaid Hassan, M.Phil., Ph.D.

A Foundation for Islamic Research and Education

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

Cover photograph by courtesy of Truls Tiller; taken at Ullsfjorden, Norway,

With names of prophets, a Muslim reader is expected to consider a prayer

I am grateful to Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Sajid Shahbaz

‘Temperate, sincere, and intelligent inquiry and discussion

A rrogance – presupposing that all with a different

represent the naturalistic worldview, Stephen Hawking’s

‘There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon

‘The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by

In search of ultimate answers: metaphysics,

T heoretical contributions of science, particularly in

religion and philosophy. With immense intellectual and

universe as well. We are keen to know what scientists have

and scientific instruments reveal the real picture of reality

approach metaphysical questions about, e.g., the reality of time

ethics to scientific formulae must fail".’

superheroes. Surely, they deserve to be so, but we must be

as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve

theory, string theory, M-theory, supersymmetry theory, and so on

philosophical discussion, like that of theism/atheism, such

Following where reason and evidence lead

people be empowered to rationally decide for themselves.

The second exercise was necessary because, first, as the

literature11 from among the key Islamic texts, for it is

‘[I]t is a perversion of language to assign any law as the

TGD’s (The Grand Design) Position

east tomorrow. TGD further qualifies the definition of laws as

a description of what is commonly observed to happen, for it

us consider, for instance, Boyle’s law, which can be simply

that of laws, namely ‘lawlessness’.

from 20 to 40 m2. Now if everything else remains constant,

or outcome (regularity); to describe this regularity,

‘It is extremely dangerous to fit physical theories to a priori

‘For we say that all portents [miracles] are contrary to nature;

C hapter 2 of TGD (The Grand Design) is devoted to the

Scientific determinism and free will

awake brain-surgery were electrically stimulated. This

we very well know that we can make choices with so much

them were forced to ‘dance to their DNA’s music’, as

‘every mental property is identical with some physical

view, the higher-level properties of the brain (thoughts,

alluded to in the Quran to substantiate its argumentation.

part (although an integral one) necessarily requiring 1 & 2 to

As for TGD’s question where free will developed in the

literature, or even the very philosophical assumptions on

some experiments, it becomes necessary to rely on

on some desire for a comprehensive "scientific" explanation

animals have gone through (See Ghamidi 2012b).

Not only this, but the brain can be physically altered by

mechanisms, working in response to the mental/conscious

as dualism. Although it does not necessarily imply that

and its functions.

shall act in a certain way tomorrow.32

nature, we should go back to Mumford’s (2004) view that

Miracles and their purpose

i.e., the enemies of reason, truth, and morality – received

‘It is a common rule in theoretical physics, one accepted by

‘We have thus assigned to pure reason and experience their

T he question is raised in Chapter 2 of TGD (The Grand

it is merely ‘substituting one mystery for another’.

In other words, laws of nature are determined by the shape

A Critical Review of Stephen Hawking's Godless Universe by Junaid Hasan

A Critical Review of Stephen Hawking's Godless Universe by Junaid Hasan