Why Did God Create Us and Where Are We?

Why Did God Create Us and Where Are We?

Multiple Universes and a Universe from Nothing

We have previously seen that the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant requires the assumption of multiple universes to explain it.
However, multiple universes open the door to an argument against the “a universe from nothing” interpretation, which rests on quantum vacuum fluctuations as its foundation. With the hypothesis of multiple universes, it is now possible to explain these fluctuations as trans-universal effects. This is more reasonable and logical than the non-causality adopted by quantum mechanics, and thus destroys the hypothesis of something from nothing at its foundation. There is no longer something from nothing. This is aside from the fact that it requires the existence of space—no matter how infinitely small—before everything, in order for the quantum vacuum fluctuations to occur inside of it.

Those who justify the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant with the multiverse concept assume that these universes are at the same level, with all of them belonging to a single group, or as they tend to describe them, like bubbles coming out of a pot of boiling water. We can assume—and this is what we believe—that they are multiple universes, but at different levels, one originating from the other. Thus, the lowest universe level came from a universe of a higher level. These universes affect each other. According to this hypothesis, we can explain the appearance of quantum vacuum fluctuations in relation to our universe. However, we cannot explain the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant unless there is someone who tuned it with the intention of creating the universe. Consequently, this proves the existence of a god who wants to create us.
Scientifically speaking, the hypothesis that multiple universes are at one level is no more likely than what we have hypothesized, which is that they are not at one level. In fact, perhaps the quantum fluctuations in space make the hypothesis that the universes are at different levels more probable, since these quanta represent the elementary particles from which our universe originated. If they are from the effect of another universe, they are certainly from the effect of a universe from which our universe originated. This supports the idea that the multiple universes are not on one level or from a single origin. Instead, they are on different levels and have originated from one another. Each universe has a different source than the other universes and as a result, has different ranks of creation, existence, and composition. This makes the concept of multiple universes unsuitable for explaining the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

To clarify, here are two instances. If all of the multiple universes began with quantum fluctuations of space and from elementary particles like the ones our universe started from, then we may state that, collectively, they can be used to explain the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant in our universe. However, if each one of the multiple universes began in a different way that suited its level, for example, with something completely different than any particles of energy or matter, then collectively, these universes cannot be used to explain the cosmological constant because they are not a single group originating from one common, direct origin.

A Universe with a Total Energy of Zero

I have previously demonstrated how, based on observations, the universe was proven to be flat and of zero curvature. We have also previously shown that there are three possible models of the universe: spherical, horse saddle-shaped or flat.
In order to more clearly understand the meaning of a flat universe and what this entails, I will present the following example:
Let us suppose that all of the positive energy and matter of the universe are essentially equivalent to a ball. It is naturally possible to calculate energy as matter based on the law of equivalence from special relativity. Let us also suppose that the universe is a rocket that we want to launch from the earth towards space. I have previously clarified that there is an escape velocity from gravity, and I mentioned an approximate value for the escape velocity from the earth’s gravity. Now, if we launch this rocket at a speed lower than the escape velocity, it would rise to a certain distance, then rebound and fall toward the earth due to gravity. We can understand that what happens to the rocket is similar to what happens to a ball-shaped universe, where the value of the energy driving it to expand is less than the value of its gravity. This leads to it contracting and collapsing upon itself, perhaps even prior to the formation of clear landmarks of matter, such as the galaxies in our universe. If we launch the rocket at a speed much greater than the escape velocity, it will launch into space and keep moving rapidly away from the earth. This represents the model that looks like a horse saddle in the Friedmann models. In a universe like this, perhaps the matter therein—if it exists—did not have the time to form galaxies, since the speed of expansion of the universe (energy and matter) has scattered it in space.
The third possibility is to launch a rocket at a speed equal to the escape velocity. This means that this rocket will escape gravity but then slow down without falling to the earth, because it has escaped the earth’s gravity. This is similar to the flat universe Friedmann model, as the positive energy of all matter (and energy) in the universe (in our example, the energy driving the rocket) equals the negative energy of cosmic gravity (in our example, the energy of the gravity resisting the rocket’s movement). A universe such as this has energy driving it to expand just enough to escape only from the force of its gravity.

Earlier we learned that observation has proven that our universe is flat, and that the cosmological constant therein allows it to escape from its gravity only, that is, the positive energy equals the negative energy in our universe. Some physicists, like Lawrence Krauss, theorize that such a universe may have come from nothing, because the sum of its total energy equals zero.

There is something else we might notice about a universe whose negative and positive energy are equal. If we were considering the issue from an economic perspective, we would choose something that guarantees only the escape of the rocket from earth’s gravity, as long as we do not need more than that.

Our universe is flat and, its cosmological constant allows it to escape from gravity. This means that it allows matter to form, and keeps the universe from collapsing upon itself as well. At the same time, it is extremely energy efficient—to the extent that the total energy equals zero. Therefore, it has no excess energy that would drive it to expand more than needed, and no energy shortage causing it to collapse on itself.

I believe this issue is easy to understand and would completely convince anyone who understands it that the universe is fine-tuned at high accuracy. It is for this reason that physicists try to find a scientific explanation of this precise, fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, as we have previously made clear. In reality, there is a scientific inability, at least up to the present time, to explain the cosmological constant that is fine-tuned so precisely. We have already presented and examined those solutions that are worthy of discussion.

The Sum of the Energy in the Universe and a Universe from Nothing

When we examined dark energy earlier, we showed how physicists managed to prove, with a reasonable level of confidence, that the shape of the universe is flat. Based on this, physicists such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss propose that the sum of energy in a flat universe is zero. The reason is that gravity has negative energy, which opposes the positive energy of matter, and the positive energy of the flat universe is just enough to escape. In other words, the positive energy is exactly equal to the negative energy, making the total energy of the universe equal to zero. The fact that its total energy is zero means it could have come from nothing—according to Lawrence Krauss and other proponents of this view—since no external energy entered the universe. As a result, the energy and matter of the universe is just an internal product, and quantum vacuum fluctuations ensure this, in accordance with quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

In this way, quantum fluctuations created the universe from nothing, and there was no outside intervention in the universe because it is not required. The universe set itself in motion by using quantum vacuum fluctuations, which emptiness is not free of, according to quantum mechanics. Therefore, there is no need to assume the existence of a god who set the universe in motion externally. However, all of this overlooks the space in which quantum vacuum fluctuations take place. This space itself requires an explanation no matter how infinitesimal it is. This has been discussed earlier.

In that case, what we have here is space, and quantum fluctuations appearing inside this space according to the laws of quantum mechanics, or specifically, the uncertainty principle. At this point, it must be noted that the uncertainty principle states that quantum fluctuations must exist in space, but does not explain their existence. Therefore, the reason and explanation for the appearance of these fluctuations remains unknown. Quantum mechanics forgoes explaining them by eliminating the causality principle that is uniformly present in every event in the universe at a non-quantum level. Causality is a principle that has not been absent in a single cosmological event, so how can it be absent here? And why haven’t our capabilities, which are by no means unlimited, enabled us to find the reason?
I believe that eliminating causality would be running away from the solution rather than being a solution in itself. We can simply argue using what Hugh Everett proposed: that there are other universes that can affect each other, and thus quantum fluctuations are effects from a neighboring universe, or trans-universal, effects.

With regard to the total energy of the universe equalling zero, or the sum of forces therein equalling zero, this in no way disproves the existence of a god. Atheists want to say that nothing external entered the universe, so why would we need to assume the existence of a god? However, if someone says that something external must enter the universe in order for us to be able to assume or require the assumption of a god, then this issue would require proof and evidence. I have explained the scientific evidence for that, including the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

As for me personally, I believe that it is absolutely impossible for anything outside of the universes to enter, and the sum of forces inside of them must equal zero, because the created existence as a whole cannot be anything other than nothingness itself. If the created existence as a whole was not nothingness to begin with, it would stand in opposition to the divine self. Accordingly, we would fall into the greatest unsolvable theological philosophical dilemma, namely: where is the created existence in relation to God? Was the creation created inside or outside the Self? Alternatively, we can also rephrase the question and say: is God inside or outside the creation?

If the created existence as a whole is not mere nothingness, any answer would necessitate one of two things; either that God is new, or that the created existence is old. This means either invalidating His absolute divinity or denying His oneness.
To say that God is neither inside or outside of things or that the creation is not inside or outside of the Self, cannot be considered an answer. In fact, it is merely a denial of the above two answers [that a god is new, or that the created existence is old]. Nevertheless, it is a better response, under any circumstances, than the above two answers and what they entail in terms of negating the Almighty’s divinity and oneness.
In reality, the creation’s existence is merely a nominal existence in contrast to God’s real existence. Our state is like that of the quantum fluctuations in space that our bodies are filled with. We, as opposed to the Almighty, are just nothingness, because since the beginning, we have not left the state of nothingness. Rather, we are in the nothingness and we carry our nothingness with us. Thus, nothing really exists except the Almighty. Some religious people may have difficulty understanding these statements, which were made only after I presented scientific proof for them. Even so, many proven scientific facts that stem from quantum mechanics and general relativity are difficult to understand. Is it easy to understand and comprehend that one electron, which is a matter particle, enters through two slits on one surface at the same time? Is it easy to understand that time is a fourth cosmic dimension, just like the three dimensions of space, and that the mass of the earth affects time, curving it in the spacetime fabric?

Where Are We?!

This question, which I have answered in the previous topic, is considered one of the most important and pressing ideological questions for the human—if not the first and foremost ideological question to cross a person’s mind, given that it lies along the first path in the search for truth. Every person asks this question and repeats it in their mind: “Where are we?” or “Where are we in relation to God? Where did God create us? Did he create us inside or outside of His Self? If it was outside of His Self, where is this outside? Did He create this outside and then create us inside of it, or is this outside eternal and old?”

It is clear that it cannot be old and eternal, because this would mean that there is more than one old entity, or more than one absolute divinity. However, if He created this outside, where did He create it? Did He create it in another outside that is older than Him? This series of questions will continue in this manner until eventually reaching an eternal and old outside. And if the outside in which He created us is eternal and old, or if it reaches an eternal and old entity, then there is more than one old entity, and more than one absolute divinity! Undoubtedly this is false, and it is shirk (polytheism). Wahhabis claim this—that the creation is outside of the self—and they believe in this corrupt doctrine. This belief is much worse than the Christian belief in the three persons.

Regarding the belief that we were created within His Self, this means that His Self is new, but it would also mean that the Self would experience new events if the creation is inside, disproving His oldness and absolute divinity.
If we were to assume the answer of an eternal and old outside or one that traces back to an eternal and old outside, not only would it mean that there is more than one old entity, but it would also mean that it allows for new events, if the creation is inside. This implies it is both new, having a beginning, and old and eternal—at the same time—which is impossible, as nothing can be new and old.
In addition, claiming the existence of an outside that is away from the Self and distinct from it refutes His absolute divinity, because it refutes that He is Absolute. Thus, this outside becomes a limitation of the Almighty, because He is not within this outside.

As we can see, this issue is highly complex. For this reason, most doctrinal writers have chosen to avoid it. Some Muslims chose an answer that means He is not within or outside of things. This answer is closer to being no answer than an answer to the question or a solution to this dilemma. It is an act of rehashing the following words attributed to Imam Ali pbuh:
Close to things without touching; distant from them without parting (Al-Qabaniji 2000, 145).
This religious account is not a detailed answer to the dilemma. It is only a denial of the two incorrect answers (that the god is within things or that he is outside of things). The fact is, the Imams pbut did not go into detail regarding this major ideological issue connected to proving the existence of God and to monotheism, though needed, for the same reasons we have repeatedly stated: ambiguous topics are sometimes left to be explained by one of the Hujjahs (Proofs) of God in his time, and it becomes evidence of his claim. Also it is possible that a matter was not made clear because its time had not come, or its people were not present. Who would have been able to understand what escape velocity or singularity mean during the time of Imam Ali pbuh? Who would have been able to understand how matter carries its nothingness with it, or understand antimatter and many other things whose time, during that age, had not yet come?

Al-Sadiq pbuh said, “Not every known thing is told, and not every told thing’s time has come, and not everything that’s time has come has had its people come” (Al-Hilli 1950, 212).
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come (New Testament, John 16:13).

From the book The Atheism Delusion


لماذا خلقنا الله وأين نحن؟
مجموع الطاقة في الكون وكون من لاشيء:
فيما تقدم عندما بحثنا في الطاقة المظلمة تبين كيف تمكن الفيزيائيون من البرهنة وبدرجة لا بأس بها من الثقة أنّ شكل الكون مسطح، وإذا كان الكون مسطحاً فعلى هذا الأساس يطرح بعض الفيزيائيين مثل د. لورانس كراوس أنّ مجموع الطاقة في كون مسطح تساوي صفراً والسبب: إنّ للجاذبية طاقة سالبة تواجه طاقة المادة الموجبة والكون المسطح طاقته الموجبة تكفي فقط للإفلات أي إنّ الطاقة الموجبة هي بالضبط تساوي الطاقة السالبة، وهكذا تكون الطاقة الكلية للكون تساوي صفراً، وكون طاقته الكلية تساوي صفراً يمكن أن يأتي من لا شيء بحسب لورانس كرواس والذين يلتزمون هذا الرأي، حيث لم تدخل للكون طاقة من خارجه وبالتالي فطاقة الكون ومادته إنما هي نتاج داخلي فقط والتفاوتات الكمومية في الفراغ تضمن ذلك بحسب مبدأ اللايقين وميكانيك الكم.
وهكذا تكون التفاوتات الكمومية قد أوجدت الكون من لا شيء، فلا يوجد تدخل في الكون من خارجه؛ لأنه ليس بحاجة لهذا التدخل، فالكون بدأ نفسه بنفسه بواسطة التفاوتات الكمومية للفراغ التي لا يخلو منها الفراغ بحسب ميكانيك الكم، وهكذا فلا داعي لفرض وجود إله ابتدأ الكون من خارجه، وهذا كله بغض النظر عن الفضاء الذي تحدث فيه التفاوتات الكمية للفراغ حيث إنه نفسه يحتاج لتفسير مهما كان متناهياً في الصغر وقد ناقشنا هذا الأمر سابقاً.
إذن، فما لدينا هنا هو فضاء وتفاوتات كمومية تظهر فيه بحسب قوانين ميكانيك الكم أو بالخصوص مبدأ الريبة أو اللايقين، وهنا لابد من الانتباه إلى أنّ مبدأ اللايقين يقول إنه لابد أن تكون هناك تفاوتات كمومية في الفضاء ولكنه لا يعلل وجودها، فعلة وسبب ظهور هذه التفاوتات تبقى مجهولة وميكانيك الكم هنا يتنازل عن التعليل بإلغاء مبدأ السببية المضطرد في كل الأحداث داخل الكون على مستوى أكبر من المستوى الكمي، فالسببية مبدأ لم يتخلف في حادثة كونية واحدة فكيف يفرض تخلفه هنا؟! لماذا لا تكون قدراتنا – وهي قطعاً غير مطلقة – لا تؤهلنا لإيجاد السبب؟
أعتقد أنّ إلغاء السببية يمثل هروباً من الحل وليس حلاً، ونحن ببساطة يمكننا المحاججة بما طرحه هيو افرت وهو وجود أكوان أخرى يمكن أن يؤثر بعضها ببعض، وبهذا تكون التفاوتات الكمومية عبارة عن آثار من كون مجاور لكوننا أو عابرة للأكوان.
أما كون الطاقة الكلية للكون تساوي صفراً أو مجموع القوى فيه تساوي صفراً، فهذا لا يعني بحال نفي وجود الإله، هم يريدون القول: إنه لا يوجد شيء دخل للكون من الخارج فلماذا نحتاج فرض وجود الإله، ولكن من قال: إنه يجب أن يدخل شيء من الخارج للكون لنتمكن من فرض وجود إله أو لنحتاج فرض وجود إله، هذا الأمر قيد الاثبات والدليل وقد بينت الأدلة العلمية على ذلك ومنها ضبط الثابت الكوني.
وبالنسبة لي شخصياً أقول: إنه لا يجوز أصلاً أن يدخل شيء من خارج الأكوان إليها ويجب أن تكون مجموع القوى فيها يساوي صفراً؛ لأن الوجود المخلوق ككل يجب أن لا يكون شيئاً آخر غير العدم نفسه، فلو كان الوجود المخلوق ككل ليس عدماً لكانت له مقابلة مع الذات الإلهية ولوقعنا في أكبر إشكال فلسفي كلامي ممتنع على الحل وهو: أين هو الوجود المخلوق من الإله؟ أو هل أن الخلق خلقوا في الذات أو خارج الذات؟ أو يمكن أن نضع السؤال أيضاً بهذه الصيغة: هل أنّ الإله داخل في الخلق أو أنه خارج عنهم؟
فلو لم يكن الوجود المخلوق ككل مجرد عدم لكان أي جواب يلزم منه أحد أمرين: إما أنّ الإله حادث، أو أنّ الوجود المخلوق قديم، وهذا يعني إما نقض ألوهيته المطلقة أو نفي وحدانيته سبحانه وتعالى.
ومع أنّ القول: إنّ الله لا داخل في الأشياء ولا خارج عنها أو أنّ الخلق ليسوا في الذات ولا خارج الذات لا يعتبر جواباً، بل هو فقط إنكار لكلا الجوابين المتقدمين، ولكنه أفضل في كل حال من الجوابين المتقدمين وما يلزم منهما من نقض ألوهيته ووحدانيته سبحانه وتعالى.
الحقيقة، إنّ وجود الخلق هو مجرد وجود اعتباري في مقابل وجود الله الحقيقي وحالنا كحال التفاوتات الكمية في الفضاء والتي تعج بها أجسامنا، فنحن في مقابله سبحانه وتعالى مجرد أعدام؛ لأننا أصلاً لم نخرج من العدم، إنما نحن في العدم ونحمل عدمنا معنا، فحقاً لا يوجد سواه سبحانه ربما يصعب على بعض المتدينين فهم هذه العبارات والتي عرضت برهانها العلمي قبل أن أطلقها، ولكن هناك كثير من الحقائق العلمية المبرهنة يصعب فهمها كميكانيك الكم والنسبية العامة، فهل من السهل فهم واستيعاب أن الكتروناً واحداً وهو جسيم مادي يدخل من شقين في صفحة واحدة في نفس الوقت، أم هل من السهل فهم أن الزمان بعد كوني رابع كأبعاد المكان الثلاثة وأن كتلة الأرض تؤثر في الزمان وتحنيه في نسيج الزمكان.
أين نحن؟!
هذا السؤال الذي أجبته في الموضوع السابق يعتبر من أهم الأسئلة العقائدية الملحة على الإنسان إن لم نقل إنه أول وأهم سؤال عقائدي يمر على الإنسان باعتبار أنه واقع في أول طريق البحث عن الحقيقة، فكل إنسان يسأل هذا السؤال ويردده في فكره: أين نحن، أو أين نحن من الله؟ أين خلقنا الله؛ هل خلقنا في ذاته أم خارج ذاته، وإذا كان خارج ذاته فأين هذا الخارج؟ هل هو خلق هذا الخارج ثم خلقنا فيه، أم أنّ هذا الخارج قديم أزلي؟
واضح أنه لا يمكن أن يكون قديماً أزلياً؛ لأن معناه تعدد القدماء أو اللاهوت المطلق، ولكن إذا كان قد خلق هذا الخارج فأين خلقه؟! هل خلقه في خارج آخر أقدم منه؟! هكذا سيتسلسل الأمر حتى ينتهي إلى خارج قديم أزلي! وإذا كان الخارج الذي خلقنا فيه قديم أزلي أو ينتهي إلى قديم أزلي فقد تعدد القدماء! وتعدد اللاهوت المطلق! وهذا بلا شك باطل وشرك، والوهابيون يقولون بهذا القول أي أن الخلق خارج الذات ويعتقدون بهذه العقيدة الفاسدة، وهذا الاعتقاد أسوأ بكثير من قول المسيحيين بالأقانيم الثلاثة.
أما القول إننا خلقنا في ذاته فهو يعني حدوث ذاته؛ لأنها أصبحت محلاً للحوادث، وبهذا نقض قدمه ونقض لاهوته المطلق.
والجواب بالخارج القديم الأزلي أو الجواب الذي يرجع لخارج قديم أزلي لو افترضناه فهو إضافة إلى كونه يعني تعدد القدماء، فهو سيكون محلاً للحوادث إذا كان الخلق فيه، وهذا يعني إنه حادث له بداية وقديم أزلي في نفس الوقت، وهذا الأمر محال فلا يمكن أن يكون الشيء حادثاً وقديماً.
إضافة إنّ القول بوجود خارج عن الذات بائن عنها ينقض لاهوته المطلق سبحانه؛ لأنه ينقض كونه مطلقاً، فهذا الخارج أصبح حداً له سبحانه وتعالى؛ لأنه ليس في هذا الخارج.
فالمسألة كما نرى مربكة جداً، ولهذا اختار من كتبوا في العقائد تجنبها في الغالب وبعض المسلمين اختاروا جواباً مفاده أنه ليس في الأشياء ولا خارج عنها، وهذا الجواب أقرب إلى اللاجواب منه إلى أن يكون جواباً على السؤال أو حلاً لهذه المعضلة، وهو عملية اجترار لكلمة منسوبة للإمام علي (عليه السلام): [قريب من الأشياء من غير ملامسة، بعيد منها من غير مباينة] ( ).
وهذا ليس جواباً مفصلاً للمعضلة إنما فقط إنكار على كلا الجوابين الخاطئين (أي إنّ الإله في الأشياء، أو أنه خارج الأشياء)، وعدم تفصيل الأئمة (عليهم السلام) لهذه المسألة العقائدية الكبرى المرتبطة بإثبات وجود الله وبالتوحيد والتي تحتاج التفصيل لنفس الأسباب التي قلناها سابقاً وكررناها وهي أنّ المتشابهات تترك بعض الأحيان ليبينها حجة من حجج الله في زمانه، فتكون دليلاً عليه. وأيضاً: ربما لا تبين أمور لأنه لم يحضر وقتها وأهلها، فمن يمكنه أن يفهم معنى سرعة الإفلات أو المفردة مثلاً في زمن الإمام أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام)، أو يفهم أن المادة تحمل عدمها معها أو يفهم المادة المضادة وأموراً كثيرة لم يكن قد حضر وقتها في ذلك الزمان.
قال الصادق (عليه السلام): [ما كل ما يعلم يقال، ولا كلما يقال حان وقته، ولا كلما حان وقته حضر أهله] ( ).
(وأما متى جاء ذاك روح الحق فهو يرشدكم إلى جميع الحق لأنه لا يتكلم من نفسه بل كل ما يسمع يتكلم به ويخبركم بأمور آتية) ( ).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s