Epigraph:
“The God of Islam is the same God Who is visible in the reflection of the laws of nature and is discernible in the book of nature. Islam has not presented a new God but has presented the same God Who is presented by the light of man’s heart, by the conscience of man, and by heaven and earth.” [The Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani in Majmu’a Ishtiharat, Vol. II, pp. 310-311]
Source: The Guardian UK: guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 June 2012 03.15 EDT
By Tim Radford
The astronomer royal addresses the cosmic coincidence that six numbers in physics are just right for the emergence of galaxies, stars, chemistry and people:
Without them there would be no galaxies of stars, no chemistry, no people, no books and no breakfast. There is – there has been for decades – an almost absurd number of brilliantly readable books about why the universe is as it is, but this one just possibly might be my favourite: its basic idea is so simple, its structure so constrained, and yet – like the universe it describes – so rich with possibilities.
Lord Martin Rees
Some of the six numbers should already be familiar to anyone who reads about cosmology, though one is a complete surprise, not because the number is new, but because it is so familiar it had never occurred to me that it was a property that could be any different.
One can marvel, almost indefinitely, at the balance between the nuclear forces and the astoundingly feeble but ultimately inexorable power of gravity, giving us N, a huge number involving 36 zeroes, and nod gratefully each time one is told that were gravity not almost exactly 1036 times weaker then we wouldn’t be here. One can gasp at the implications of the density parameter Ω (omega), which one second after the big bang could not have varied from unity by more than one part in a million billion or the universe would not still be expanding, 13.7bn years on.
But who’d have thought that we also needed D for dimension to equal three, because without that value the show would never have got on the road? We go up the stairs, down the hall or across the living room so often that we tend to imagine that those are the only imaginable dimensions, but there could have been just two, for instance, or perhaps four.
Had there been four dimensions, gravitational and other forces would have varied inversely as the cube of the distance rather than the square, and the inverse cube law would be an unforgiving one. Any orbiting planet that slowed for whatever reason in its orbit would swiftly plunge into the heart of its parent star; any planet that increased its speed ever so slightly would spiral madly into the cold and the dark.
Under the inverse square law, however, a planet that speeds up ever so slightly – or slows down – simply shifts to a very slightly different orbit. That is, we owe the stability of the solar system to the fact that spacetime has, on the macroscale, only three physical dimensions.
All six values featured in this book permit something significant to happen, and to go on happening. Take for instance Q, the one part in 100,000 ratio between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity. Were this ratio a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies. Were it only a bit smaller, star formation would be slow and the raw material for future planets would not survive to form planetary systems. Were it much bigger, stars would collapse swiftly into black holes and the surviving gas would blister the universe with gamma rays.
The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water.
Einstein’s supposed “biggest blunder”, the cosmological constant λ for lambda, is a number not only smaller than first expected; it is a number so small that the puzzle is that it is not zero. But this weakest and most mysterious of forces – think of a value with 120 zeroes after the decimal point – seems to dictate the whole future of the universe. It seems just strong enough to push the most distant galaxies away from us at an unexpected rate. Were it much stronger, there might be no galaxies to accelerate anywhere.
Interestingly, Just Six Numbers was written in 1999, before we got used to the idea of “dark energy” as the dominant force in the cosmos. The concept is there, all the same. The strength of this book is that it addresses the single most profound mystery of the universe – how is it that we are here to ask these questions? – in a neat series of brief chapters, but also gives Rees room to discuss all the associated puzzles of antimatter, quantum effects, cosmic string, magnetic monopoles, cosmic inflation, dark matter, Planck time, mini black holes and so on in the same questioning context.
The style is simple, conversational and without flourish: it does not condescend or patronise. Nor does it claim any special authority. It could, of course: the author is astronomer royal, a member of the House of Lords, a master of Trinity College Cambridge, a former president of the Royal Society, a recent Reith lecturer (his lectures are collected in the BBC booklet From Here to Infinity) and a lifelong player in the great cosmological pursuit. But it doesn’t: the implications of all this exquisite fine-tuning are handled without dogmatism, and with a sense that debate will continue.
Does it not seem odd that the universe should be exactly right for us? No, because we are here to see it, so it would look that way, wouldn’t it? And if the machinery for fashioning universes out of nothing, or almost nothing, made enough of them – this is the multiverse argument – then of course one would pop up with exactly the conditions for stars, planets, water, life and even a House of Lords.
But, says Rees, look at it another way: suppose instead that you were the intended victim of a firing squad and every bullet missed you, wouldn’t you be inclined to wonder if something special had been arranged on your behalf, that, somewhere in the Looking Glass world of modern physics, there might be some deeper reason for the providential value of these six numbers? And if there were, would we be smart enough to see it?
The Muslim Times’ Chief Editor’s comments
I agree with every thing said above. But, let me add:
Christian apologists want to make a case for Christianity based on laws of nature and science, by showing that there ought to be a Transcendent Creator of our universe. They make this case, in one breath, and in the very next, deny all of science, by insisting on Eucharist, man-God of Jesus, who is not Transcendent, resurrection and miracles that violate laws of nature.
Atheists are right in exposing the irrationality of the Christian dogma. However, the Christians are right in as far as their claim that there needs to be a Creator of this universe, Who employed natural means to do His work. However, both parties in their self-conceit are not listening to how Islam resolves their conflict; Islam as understood by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
In a trilateral discussion between atheists, Christians and Muslims, I believe we can appreciate reality better and come up with better theology, especially if the discussion not only involves the Creator and purpose of the universe, but, also His complete Transcendence, Original Sin and evolution of life on our planet, Trinity, Mother Mary and Eucharist.
Let me conclude my prologue with a quote from Sir Charles Darwin:
To conclude, therefore, let no man out of weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well-studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both.
Categories: CHRISTIANITY, Deism, Islam, Religion
The creator God of Christians is certainly transcendent, and beyond any limits we might choose to put on him. This is why there is no contradiction in believing that, in his love, he stooped down to come to us, becoming immanent, even incarnate, yet still (maybe paradoxically) remaining God. Hence the demonstration of his power over nature by his miracles.
A God who is confined by the laws of nature, which he himself set in place, is a very small God indeed.
John please be real.
Jesus may peace be on him was bones and flesh and a Trinitarian Christian God is not truly Transcendent.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. This is twenty first century and contradictory rhetoric of old times, cannot continue to work. Peace!
The discussion about trinity reminds me of a booklet I saw in Africa. It was published by some Christians and was called ‘How to convert a Muslim to Christianity’. It started with the sentence: ‘Do not bother to try and explain the Trinity to a Muslim. He will not understand it.’ (and it went on to say that speak instead of ‘The Love of Jesus’). – Well, Allah loves us, indeed. That is why Allah, The One, who has no partners and no equals, has given us the Qur’an and continues to guide us to this day … through Khilafat – e – Ahmadiyyat.
John as regards your comment about laws of nature and God, let me quote the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community:
Promised Messiah(as). Barkat Ul Dua (Urdu) as published in Roohani Khazain. Page 27. Urdu pdf file is available at Alislam.org.
God is One. The Christians made a mistake to take Jesus and holy ghost as God. I will explain the reason. See Verse Mathew 28:19 below:
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (King James Version.)
This verse is correct, genuine. It is like the Kalimah of Muslims i.e. “There is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger.”
Muslims preach in the name of Allah and second part of their Kalimah is describing where from they got that Kalimah. It was given (told)to them by Muhammad.
Similarly, Jesus advised his disciples to go and preach in the name of Father and son (Jesus) and the holy Ghost (The blessed angel). The son and the holy ghost were only part of the carriers of the message. They were not to be taken as God. Muslims do not take Muhammad as God even though name is mentioned along with God (Allah).
Preaching in the name of Jesus does not make him God, nor does it make the holy Ghost any God. Ghost or angel will remain an angel, i.e. a creature, just like Jesus.
So Christians should preach in the name of God and they may mention the name of Jesus as well as the holy spirit. There is no harm. But it wold be bad to make them two as gods.
Gentlemen, thank you for your replies. Allow me to respond.
If God is God, why can he not come and take on flesh and bones if he so chooses? Is anything impossible to God? It is not a contradiction. Someone who comes to walk with us is far more credible as having love for us than someone who simply issues edicts from on high.
You are quite right, if I correctly understand your founder’s quote, that God is able to influence his creation without coming into it. Yet to truly demonstrate you love for someone, you go to him or her. This is why the eternal, infinite Son willingly set aside his glory for a time, to take on human flesh, with all its limitations, to demonstrate his love for us, by ultimately taking upon himself the just penalty (death) for our wrong-doing and hardheartedness. Yet, also being God, he takes his life back, so that having borne our punishment and demonstrated his hatred for our sin, he can forgive us and give us eternal life.
A judge who acquits a criminal because the criminal is sorry shows that he does not take the crime seriously. But God does take our sin seriously. He hates it. But he loves us. So does not want us to die (eternally). My saying sorry for my sin is not enough. It must be punished if God is truly holy and just. So Jesus takes my punishment.
By the way, the Holy Spirit (‘ghost’ is just the old English word for ‘spirit’), as mentioned in Matthew 28:19 is not an angel (Gabriel or any other), but God, and the 3rd person of the Trinity. This verse clearly places all 3 persons on an equal level. Not gods, but God. Many other Bible passages say the same thing.
Peace be with you.
Dear John
This is a very strange love you are talking about, which cannot even forgive without killing his own son.
John, please tell me in what circumstances would you allow, condone or appreciate suicide? We can both agree that both of us condemn in the strongest terms, suicidal terrorist, regardless of any nobility in their nationalist agenda.
God is indeed Omnipotent and can indeed do anything, but He does not lie, cheat or commit suicide.
I have never come across a just and noble person, who wants to punish his children, even when they express genuine remorse and contrition. It is just a false Christian construction that a Just God has to punish. He is fully in-charge and can grant a Divine pardon. Punishing some one else for crimes of others is only thing which will make Him unjust, which is the case in vicarious atonement.
May God the Father be our Guide.
Peace.
Thanks for your reply Dr Shah.
God must certainly punish sin, because he is holy. It is a stain on his honour. If he leaves sin unpunished, he cannot be a righteous, just and holy judge. It would show that he does not care for sin and would leave a stain on his honour. Yet he loves us, so he does not want us to suffer the punishment we deserve and he does not want us to carry the shame of our sin. Therefore, he provides a way to take sin, shame and punishment away.
You compare Jesus’ self-sacrifice to a suicide bomber. However, a suicide bomber seeks to destroy others. Jesus was bringing life by his sacrifice, not death. A better comparison would be someone who throws himself in between a roaring lion and a child who is about to be devoured, and dies. We would rightly regard him as a hero and a saviour because he gives his life for the sake of another. This is what Jesus does. He comes between us and the anger of the Father at our sin, and he takes the shame and punishment for us.
Your other objection, comparing the death of Jesus to a father punishing his son for someone else’s crime, comes from a misunderstanding of the union between Father and Son in the Trinity, as if they are completely separated from one another. You present them, in effect, as 2 gods, with one god punishing another. This would indeed be cruel, as you argue, if it were a true reflection of what actually happened at the cross.
This is not the way it is at all. Father and Son are distinct persons, yet they are 1 God (with the Spirit). Each is fully identified with the other and their thoughts are as one (maybe a bit like twins). The Son is not coerced by the Father to go to the cross. They will it together, as one. When Jesus is hanging on the cross dying, his Father is not looking down from a distance, aloof. Rather, his Father is present and suffering with him, although it is the Son who tastes death. When he dies, he does so physically and descends to Hell where he destroys death and then takes up his life again. This magnificent victory was for our benefit, out of his love for us, so that by believing in Jesus, we too are given victory over death (i.e. eternal life) because our sin and shame is wiped away by what Jesus has done, giving us God’s Peace.
May you too know God’s Salam.
Dear John
Your comments are in inverted commas:
We are created in God’s image. Now think of any noble judge, who ‘must punish’ and can never forgive. I have never heard of such a human judge. This will show you that this emphasis on punishment, is strange, coming from people, who want to turn the other cheek, otherwise.
You say:
I am not talking about two Gods. I am talking about two persons among the “three persons in one being.” If it was not a case of homicide, was it a suicide? Whose idea was it anyways? Was the Holy Ghost consulted about this? What was his opinion? If all shared the opinion, how did they come up with sacrificing man-God of Jesus, rather than sacrificing God the Father or the Holy Ghost?
Please explain these details, otherwise my feeble mind cannot comprehend these complex details!