The existence of God

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,
Your last post was especially helpful in bringing me closer to an understanding of your views. In a similar way to the more general discussion of the existence of god, although I disagree with the Muslim view, I'm much closer to an understanding of how and why this view came about, and why people still believe it today. Similarly, on the specific question of the problem of evil, we have two contrary views, but I think I can understand why you feel your belief on this matter is justified. So, as I see it, there's no real need for any further discussion on the problem of evil - you've made your case clearly and effectively, so I'd like to thank you for your efforts.

There are one or two minor points in your last post I'd like to clear up, however. They could us slightly off-topic in this thread, but since they are all here I think it makes sense to talk about them here.

You are right by saying that there is a change, because the verse [2.62] has been abrogated by verse [3.85]

This makes it clearer, but it could certainly be very difficult for someone without the benefit of your guidance to understand this on their own. I know, for example, that the order of suras in the Qur'an does not correspond to the order in which they were revealed, so how is someone to tell which are the later suras that abrogate previous ones? I'm sure this must lead to a great deal of confusion. Muslims often say there are absolutely no mistakes in the Qur'an, but if the earlier sura has now been updated, surely that means it is mistaken?

I did not know that Buddhists were atheists, so I guess I misunderstood what you meant. However, it seems quite strange to me because 'prayer' is usually directed to a God and it is usually an act to request help of some kind, therefore if the idols cannot provide help, as you stated, then why are they being prayed to?

Yes, Buddhists are atheists, although some of them believe in heaven and hell, but in a slightly different way from the way members of the Western monotheistic traditions do. "Prayer" in the Buddhist sense is quite different from prayer in the sense that you may have met it before. As I said, the bodhisattvas that Buddhists pray "to" are unable to help in any way; they are simply used as a focus for the person praying, in the hope that by concentrating the mind on them, some of the perceived wisdom or dedication of the bodhisattva may rub off on them.

If we look at its use in specific contexts then we may understand it better – firstly, let us remember that Islam is a complete religion, and all aspects of religion and all related important issues will of course be explicable, but it may not explain everything down to the bone with regards to topics like creation of the universe or the case of the dinosaurs etc. because such things are not key factors in the implementation of Islam.

So if we were discussing an issue of religion, a person who stated that they had “limited knowledge of the subject” would simply mean just that, which does not automatically imply you can’t talk about it if the person were willing to go and find out and if it were possible to find out. I think it more a modest assertion rather than an argumentative strategy!

Yes, there's certainly an element of modesty in the phrase, but I believe it can be used deviously. For example, I've sometimes heard a Muslim person make very outspoken, controversial comments, but then say "And Allah knows best" as a kind of precaution. Now, I can pretty much see the sense in this, but I think the phrase can end up sounding meaningless in the light of what's gone before.

And if we were talking about existence of dinosaurs for example, I think there would be little to discuss in light of Islamic evidence, therefore the discussion would cease whether the phrase were used or not. If one decided not to talk about it, it wouldn't be due to the fact that there was something to hide but simply due to lack of knowledge.

OK, this lack of knowledge idea is perhaps a better way of expressing what I had in mind. If two people are having a debate, and one of the pleads lack of knowledge by saying "Allah knows best", in effect they have ended the debate, and their opponent can say what he likes, but the debate is over; the person who pleads lack of knowledge can say no more. Effectively, they have silenced the critic, as far as that particular debate is concerned.

I'm aware that the first two points here are off-topic, but I'm not keen to start new threads for each one, because I think they can be answered quite quickly.

Thanks again for your great help with these questions; one of my Muslim students today seemed impressed with my growing knowledge of Islam - it's mainly thanks to the people on this board.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I would just like to point out that abrogation (naskh) only takes case with regards to God's laws, not in beliefs. Verse 2:62 is an invitation to have faith in Allah, which necessitates belief in His final messenger. For the commentary of verse 2:69, please refer here:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=2912&dgn=4
The verse 2:62 invites people from all previous religious background to renew their faith in Allah by accepting His final system - Islam. As the verse says:
Surely those who are (already) believers, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

So the verse invites all people, regardless of their past religious convictions, to have faith in Allah, which is clarified in other verses as following the system revealed to His last messenger. As Allah swt says:

5:65. And if only the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) had believed (in Muhammad ) and warded off evil (sin, ascribing partners to Allâh) and had become Al Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2) We would indeed have blotted out their sins and admitted them to Gardens of pleasure (in Paradise).

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

I am sorry for the late reply... with regards to the few points that needed clearing up, I have a few points to make:

This makes it clearer, but it could certainly be very difficult for someone without the benefit of your guidance to understand this on their own. I know, for example, that the order of suras in the Qur'an does not correspond to the order in which they were revealed, so how is someone to tell which are the later suras that abrogate previous ones? I'm sure this must lead to a great deal of confusion. Muslims often say there are absolutely no mistakes in the Qur'an, but if the earlier sura has now been updated, surely that means it is mistaken?

Abrogation is actually a topic of its own, and it has been discussed to an extent on this forum here.

You are right that someone may not immediately know that a particular verse has been abrogated, and this is why it is important to understand the meaning of the Qur'an by using explanatory works such as books written by knowledgable Muslim scholars who have devoted their lives to researching and gathering information from the authentic teachings of our Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that explain the Qur'an. This is because some things in the Qur'an require explanation from the Prophetic teachings and therefore the people who understood it best were the Prophet (pbuh) to whom the Qur'an was revealed and those who learnt it directly from him.

I hope by reading the recommended thread you will understand the concept of abrogation better, and see that it is in fact from the Wisdom of God rather than a mistake.

I would also like to point out that it is possible to determine the original order of Surahs in the Qur'an, because some Qur'ans actually have a number denoting this adjacent to the name of the Surah.

OK, this lack of knowledge idea is perhaps a better way of expressing what I had in mind. If two people are having a debate, and one of the pleads lack of knowledge by saying "Allah knows best", in effect they have ended the debate, and their opponent can say what he likes, but the debate is over; the person who pleads lack of knowledge can say no more. Effectively, they have silenced the critic, as far as that particular debate is concerned.

I think I am beginning to understand what you mean, but using the same example above, what if someone were to say "I don't know" instead of "Allaah Knows Best" - Would you consider that as an attempt to silence the critic?

I am very happy that you are broadening your knowledge of Islam, and I hope that what you pick up from this forum is the correct information rather than a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what people like me are trying to explain.

Peace

 

[root]

I think I am beginning to understand what you mean, but using the same example above, what if someone were to say "I don't know" instead of "Allaah Knows Best" - Would you consider that as an attempt to silence the critic?

I would not see the two as the same. Both use the same ignorance to the facts, but only one of them is an acknowledgment of such. The other claims a higher authorative explanation.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

"Allah knows best" is actually a statement of humility. Muslims choose to always end their works, discussions and thoughts with this phrase because it is an admission of our limited intelligence and the fact that there may be many details that we are not aware of. Its a disclaimer that the person making the statement is no more than a human being and if there are any mistakes in what they have mentioned, it is due to their own short-comings, while the credit for any good goes to Allah. To understand this phrase better one needs to beserve its context in Muslim discussions. Often, the Prophet saws would pose a question for his companions and they would reply by saying, "Allah and His Messenger know best". Then the Prophet Muhammad saws would provide them with the explanation. So it was a statement of humility and not something to silence the questioner or appear arrogant.

I hope this helps.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I have split this thread so that we can continue our discussions of the verse [2.62] here, which is a thread dedicated to the topic.

In answer to the last part of your question Callum, although we have been told about the creation of the Universe and humans, we have not been informed about the specific existence of dinosaurs. This does not mean that we are not allowed to believe in them, but simply that there is no evidence from Islamic teachings.

This is what I meant when I was referring to that debate about dinosaurs: the fact that if we were to prove dinosaur existence in light of Islamic evidence, there would not be much to discuss and ultimately I would say "Allaah Knows Best" about such creatures since He is the Creator of all things. And it wouldn't make any difference if I said "I don't know", because either way the discussion would end due to a restricted topic rather than a certain phrase used.

Peace.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad,

I have split this thread so that we can continue our discussions of the verse [2.62] here, which is a thread dedicated to the topic.

Good idea - thanks.

In answer to the last part of your question Callum, although we have been told about the creation of the Universe and humans, we have not been informed about the specific existence of dinosaurs. This does not mean that we are not allowed to believe in them, but simply that there is no evidence from Islamic teachings.

Is it really a question of believing in dinosaurs? They existed - fact. No?

I've now grasped the position regarding the use of "Allah knows best". Thanks for that, and for all your help in these discussions.

Peace

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

After re-visiting this thread again I realised I hadn't answered your last question, so I apologise for the (very) late response...

Is it really a question of believing in dinosaurs? They existed - fact. No?

Islam explains that Allaah created the universe and it is He who created the first man on earth, and from him came forth multitudes of men and women. If the question were to be asked, in light of Islamic teachings regarding the early stage of earth's existence, of the place of dinosaurs in all this, then Islam has not specifically mentioned these creatures.

So Islamically, dinosaurs are not mentioned yet scientifically, we are shown that such creatures did exist. So people may think of them as a fact, only not according to Islam.

I hope this clarifies the confusion,

Peace.

 

[czgibson]

Re: The Eye - Evolution

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Here is a good power point presentation about the creation of the eye, as a proof of the existence of God.


http://www.alislam.org/ppt2/index.html


Wassalam

Navidul Haq Khan

Greetings Navidkhan,

There's no such thing as a proof for the existence of god. If there were then everyone would believe it. There's no proof against it either, of course, just arguments on both sides.

Peace

 

[azim]

Re: The Eye - Evolution

Greetings Navidkhan,

There's no such thing as a proof for the existence of god. If there were then everyone would believe it. There's no proof against it either, of course, just arguments on both sides.

Peace

I disagree bro. The way I see it, people would never accept God unless he can be touched, seen and heard. Back in the day, the Prophets were given miracles to that extent - miracles such as healing the ill, parting the ocean etc.. etc.. Today, Allah has given the Quran as guidance and left us with our reasoning. Logic and intelligence of a person defines that there is a God. Think about it. If we look at the whole universe, we can come to two conclusions - there is a God who created it or that it created itself, and it, we, the whole universe exists due to a whole set of insanely improbable chances. The laws which where defined at the moment the big bang (the laws of physics) are all perfect for life to exist. For example, the attraction needed between an electron and neutron for an atom to actually be able to form has to be minutely precise, to a degree so small that it is barely measurable. Yet, that exact level of attraction has been created. The universe is phenomanally organised, on millions of different levels. There are laws which dictate all of these. Chaos can exist in infinite forms but order exists in only a few forms. I wish I had more time to give a better idea of what I'm convey but its late and I should sleep. I will mention one more improbable thing about our universe that exists however. The are 4 well known dimensions - 3 space, 1 time. There are 10 dimensions that exists, but 3 dimensions spread out during the creation of the universe where as the other 6 did not. If it had been any different, than some of most basic things about our universe would not exists. Imagine only 2 spread out, height and length. Try to imagine the universe. Believe it or not, 2 dimension universe is just as likely as a 3 dimension universe. Infinite possiblites of chaos but only finite possibilities of order - that is a fact of science. Our universe is ordered. Who put it in order?

 

[Mahmud]

I'd like to start of this discussion with my point of view on the existence of God.
---
I'll leave it at that for now.

MASHAALAH BRO..

MODERATOR'S COMMENT: FORUM RULE # 16.When a long article/post has been posted, and you want to comment on the article/post, do not quote it since it is a waste of space.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Azim,

You've given a version of the Argument from Design and Irreducible Complexity; fair enough, that's your view. My point was simply that all such lines of thought are arguments, not proofs.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Now that we're on the topic again, Callum, I wanted to ask what you feel caused the universe to come into existence. There are philosophers who have pointed out that nothing in our universe is truly random, so do you think that this entire universe and everything in it just came into existence randomly?

Thanks in advance.

 

[root]

Now that we're on the topic again, Callum, I wanted to ask what you feel caused the universe to come into existence. There are philosophers who have pointed out that nothing in our universe is truly random, so do you think that this entire universe and everything in it just came into existence randomly?

I see where your going with this. And it actually strikes at the very heart of a question that so far has remained unanswered and caused a complete withdrawel of a theory by professor Hawkins admitting he was wrong.

The issue concerns the "randomness" of a universe, since being random many universes would need to exist with variants. if our universe is indeed the only universe "out thier" then the scientific community would well be on it's back foot and a created universe a strong arguement for intelligent design or a natural "By Product" of something else. However, with a multiverse then chance get's every oppurtunity to deal a half decent deck of cards.

One fundamental question in this area is matter itself. Blackwholes consume a phenomanal ammount of matter to which matter contains "information". The question is where does all the matter go that a blackhole consumes. Hawkins proposed that the matter and information it contained was for ever hidden in a singularity point and would never be revealed.

Hawking revolutionized the study of the holes when he demonstrated in 1976 that, under the strange rules of quantum physics, once black holes form they start to "evaporate" away, radiating energy and losing mass in the process.

The terms of the bet were that "information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden and can never be revealed."

Now he has reversed his theory and accepts information/matter can escape which could result in a "White Hole" which could even be a "Big Bang" effect. Truth is nobody knows and as yet such questions is beyond the grasp of human intelligence but at the same time does not imply we will never know. The point being is that a single universe with matter and information simply "dissapearing" is no longer supported. So where does the matter and information go...............

The randomness of a universe is only a valid concept if we consider a single closed universe or open multi-verse. Science does not have the answer only a hunch, meaning if it had to place a bet. Then on current understanding the science community backs a multi-verse and thier are no prizes for guessing what cretionists believe since a single "one off" universe cannot arrive by chance since it only gets one chance to work.

Finally, my own personal thought on the matter is thus. (and I think I have said this a few times.) We once thought there was only one sun in the universe, we find out they are in infinate numbers and the Same for planets. We thought too after that we only had 1 solar system and one galaxy. Again they are of infinate quantity. Everytime a belief in a single universal matter/entity appeared all we find is that they are of infinate quantities. Why then would we believe it is all housed in a single universe.

The answer to the question of randomness is a universe numbers game.......

Or is it?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The issue concerns the "randomness" of a universe, since being random many universes would need to exist with variants. if our universe is indeed the only universe "out their" then the scientific community would well be on it's back foot and a created universe a strong argument for intelligent design or a natural "By Product" of something else. However, with a multiverse then chance get's every opportunity to deal a half decent deck of cards.

Well that’s a very biased reasoning. First of all, should there be a thing like “chance” that doesn’t mean all the other possibilities actually happen. But I do think string theory will prove Einstein was right when he said: God does not throw dice. I’m not saying there is no multiverse. I’m simply saying chance has nothing to do with it.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Now that we're on the topic again, Callum, I wanted to ask what you feel caused the universe to come into existence. There are philosophers who have pointed out that nothing in our universe is truly random, so do you think that this entire universe and everything in it just came into existence randomly?

The simple answer is I don't know what caused the universe to exist.

"Nothing is truly random" sounds like determinism, which many philosophers have suggested. Not all of them believed it themselves, although Karl Marx is an example of a philosopher who did.

It's an argument that can be taken pretty far, saying that everything is causally determined, there's no such thing as free will etc. I find it credible up to the point that neuroscience can explain how our brains work and how we experience the world using our senses. Scientists can tell where in the brain things like language and sensory motor abilities are controlled, which suggests a definite causal link, but it would be strange to say that my preference for chicken over lamb, purple over orange or the Rolling Stones over the Beatles could be explained by reference to my brain, my environment, or any other cause. These are things I've chosen at some level that is difficult to explain.

Of course, there's a lot that is so far unexplained - I'd leave it at that; you may believe that this lack of knowledge provides room for a soul, or perhaps many other things, just as a lack of knowledge about what happened before the Big Bang may provide you with room for belief in god.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings,
Thank you all for your input. Some interesting ideas...

The issue concerns the "randomness" of a universe, since being random many universes would need to exist with variants. if our universe is indeed the only universe "out thier" then the scientific community would well be on it's back foot and a created universe a strong arguement for intelligent design or a natural "By Product" of something else.

I'm afraid I didn't understand the highlighted part. Could you re-phrase that or perhaps elaborate?

However, with a multiverse then chance get's every oppurtunity to deal a half decent deck of cards.

One fundamental question in this area is matter itself. Blackwholes consume a phenomanal ammount of matter to which matter contains "information". The question is where does all the matter go that a blackhole consumes. Hawkins proposed that the matter and information it contained was for ever hidden in a singularity point and would never be revealed.

The idea that the observable universe was produced by matter/energy emmisions of a white hole seems to create more problems than it solves. First, the existence of white holes themselves are hypothetical since it conflicts with our understanding of entropy. Additionally, I can't see how it would explain the dark matter in our universe. And then you have to deal with an explanation for where the original universe came from, and you would keep going on infinitely, which doesn't answer the question of the cause of the universe but only extends it. In fact, the problem then is that an infinite number of steps preceded the present universe, and we know that an infinite number of steps cannot be crossed.

Finally, my own personal thought on the matter is thus. (and I think I have said this a few times.) We once thought there was only one sun in the universe, we find out they are in infinate numbers and the Same for planets. We thought too after that we only had 1 solar system and one galaxy. Again they are of infinate quantity. Everytime a belief in a single universal matter/entity appeared all we find is that they are of infinate quantities. Why then would we believe it is all housed in a single universe.

I'm sure you don't actually mean inifinite. There are many many many galaxies/stars/planets in our universe, but there is not an infinite number. The quanitity remains finite.

The idea behind my original question is that, no matter what kind of explanation/theory/interpretation you use, you will inevitably have to explain how our conciousness and order came spontaneously from unconciousness and disorder. How does the massive universe that we live in, with all its life, appear just like that (*snap finger for emphasis*) out of nothing? The very notion conflicts with human logic.

Qur'an 52:35-36. Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no certainty.

The way I see it, the use of hypotheticals to explain the universe has become rampant, and people simply move from one idea to another, while neither holds any more scientific validity than the other. This constant changing of ideas grants these atheists no certainty in their understanding of the universe, exactly as the Qur'an mentions. All this, to escape the admission of a Sovereign Deity. As Muhammad Asad, a Jewish Convert to Islam, says about the above verses:

This is a reductio ad absurdum of their unwillingness to admit the existence of a conscious Primary Cause underlying all creation.​

The simple answer is I don't know what caused the universe to exist.

So does that make you agnostic rather than atheist? Because to be an atheist means that you deny the very possibility of God's existence, while an agnostic would simply suggest that we have no way of knowing.

Do you think human beings will ever 'know' what caused the universe to exist? What you do know is that the universe exists and that it could not have just appeared randomly. What possibility are we left with?

Regards

 

[root]

Greetings,
Thank you all for your input. Some interesting ideas...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Root
The issue concerns the "randomness" of a universe, since being random many universes would need to exist with variants. if our universe is indeed the only universe "out thier" then the scientific community would well be on it's back foot and a created universe a strong arguement for intelligent design or a natural "By Product" of something else.


I'm afraid I didn't understand the highlighted part. Could you re-phrase that or perhaps elaborate?

Yes sure. When we look to the universe, some see a marvel of complexity that could only have come from a designer. Since an exact quantity of energy & matter would be required with the precise laws of physics for such a universe as ours to exist. The "Randomness" would apply to the ammount off matter and energy with precise laws of relativity and more complex issues. Others (including myself) look at it more as a random chance creation, to which what we see has been brought about by chance. This chance requires a number greater than one in effect for chance to occur.

Fundamentally the question "Are we in a single closed universe" is of massive implication because if we are only in a closed universe and no other universe can does or could exist then the universe surely was a creation since "chance" cannot occur in a singular entity such as a single closed universe. However, the other side of the coin is that should we find ourself in only one of an infinate number of Universes then chance has every oppurtunity it requires to bring about a good balance of mass and energy with an acceptable number for chance to occur.

The idea that the observable universe was produced by matter/energy emmisions of a white hole seems to create more problems than it solves. First, the existence of white holes themselves are hypothetical since it conflicts with our understanding of entropy. Additionally, I can't see how it would explain the dark matter in our universe. And then you have to deal with an explanation for where the original universe came from, and you would keep going on infinitely, which doesn't answer the question of the cause of the universe but only extends it. In fact, the problem then is that an infinite number of steps preceded the present universe, and we know that an infinite number of steps cannot be crossed

.

I tend to agree with you if it was not for one single point. It explains perfectly where all the matter goes, I personally have never favoured the idea that something simply "dissapears". This is never the case and is as unacceptable and on par with the expansion of the universe simply "appearing" which in General Islam and other religions and science also is very unhappy about to the point it cannot be believed. You accept the universe that we are in could not simply spring open and start expanding nor on that basis simply vanish into thin air.

Your other problem with infinate universes again I don't have a problem with since we have an infinate number of stars within our universe we would not even require infinate universes too. But for the variable randomness we don't need infinate numbers.

The idea behind my original question is that, no matter what kind of explanation/theory/interpretation you use, you will inevitably have to explain how our conciousness and order came spontaneously from unconciousness and disorder. How does the massive universe that we live in, with all its life, appear just like that (*snap finger for emphasis*) out of nothing? The very notion conflicts with human logic

I agree with you. However, on the basis that we do not as yet know or proved that we are indeed a sibngle one off universe or one of many does not imply a creator. No doubt finding the answer to multiple universes would only bring a whole bunch of new questions.

The way I see it, the use of hypotheticals to explain the universe has become rampant, and people simply move from one idea to another, while neither holds any more scientific validity than the other. This constant changing of ideas grants these atheists no certainty in their understanding of the universe, exactly as the Qur'an mentions. All this, to escape the admission of a Sovereign Deity. As Muhammad Asad, a Jewish Convert to Islam, says about the above verses:

I can understand your point. However, I don't use a hypothetical I use theory to help me understand our current understanding. String theory for example had 5 theories attached, each theory being scientifically viable and correct. This cannot be and is not the way of science, surely only one theory has to be correct. The different string theories used dimensions as part of running a machmatical model, each theory continued to be viable with the introduction of the 11th dimension. All 5 theories became one within this brilliant mathmatical calculation, which is called M Theory. The possibility of a multiverse is a scientific holy grail, and some way off a discovery. But what we do know strongly suggests that we should not be at all surprised if we are nothing more than 1 upon an infinate number of universes on a membrane super massive universe.

Do you think human beings will ever 'know' what caused the universe to exist?

Yes I do hopefully within my lifetime.

What you do know is that the universe exists and that it could not have just appeared randomly.

I would agree with your point if it was not the case that I have just put to you, a super massive universe is a possibility and therfore your point is no longer a valid one as it takes the basis that this universe is a definitive "Beginning" and "singular" entity, for this cannot be said as it is a mere hypothetical question with no supporting theory.





What possibility are we left with?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Root,
That was an excellent post, I really appreciate your in-depth explanations.

Fundamentally the question "Are we in a single closed universe" is of massive implication because if we are only in a closed universe and no other universe can does or could exist then the universe surely was a creation since "chance" cannot occur in a singular entity such as a single closed universe.

Wow. That's a very powerful statement. In other words, if our observable universe is the only thing that exists, it necessitates belief in God? If the only thing that exists is what we know from science, then atheism is false. I'm interested in Callum's opinion on this matter as well.

I would agree with your view Root, since the way I see it, a single universe can only leave 3 possibilities:
1) the universe is eternal
2) the universe came into being spontaneously
3) the universe was conciously created by an independent entity

Since 1 and 2 are clearly false, we are left with the conclusion that a single universe necessitates God.

I'm very interested in your view of a 'super massive universe' as you put it, and I'd like to read up on it, if you have any links to some good articles available, I'd really appreciate it.

I can understand your point. However, I don't use a hypothetical I use theory to help me understand our current understanding. String theory for example had 5 theories attached, each theory being scientifically viable and correct. This cannot be and is not the way of science, surely only one theory has to be correct. The different string theories used dimensions as part of running a machmatical model, each theory continued to be viable with the introduction of the 11th dimension. All 5 theories became one within this brilliant mathmatical calculation, which is called M Theory. The possibility of a multiverse is a scientific holy grail, and some way off a discovery. But what we do know strongly suggests that we should not be at all surprised if we are nothing more than 1 upon an infinate number of universes on a membrane super massive universe.

Thank you for this interesting info. So according to this idea of a super massive universe, every black hole spawns a new universe? So the number of 'universes' in progressively increasing, right?

Does this mean that before there used to be less 'universes', and progressing backwards we arrive at a point when there was only one universe?

Yes I do hopefully within my lifetime.

Interesting prediction. I'm hoping we'll first be able to reconcile classical physics with quantum mechanics.

Thanks once again for your post, root.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Root, I think the very essence of your argument comes down to this: what is chance

Quantummechanics uses chance for example. Here the notion of chance is mathematical: 9 out of 10 times the reaction will be like this.
I don't believe this is actually a matter of chance, and that there is a reason behind this that we fail to see. Chaos is a word we invented to define an order we fail to understand.

Then there's the chance you mention. Like:
The chance that this universe came to exist out of luck is just like a printingpress that explodes and all the letters fall back on the ground forming the current version of the oxford encyclopedia.
Here chance is meant not in a mathematical way, but in the sense that the event would defy all logical expectations. So he argument is meant to point out it's illogical to expect this universe came by randomness.

What I fail to understand, is how multiple dimensions would have any influence in this matter. If anything, I would think it even strenghtens the statement, because the more complex this universe turns out, the more it is illogical to assume it was the result of random energy.