Islam and Other Major World Religions

By Kaiyume Baksh

This book is intended for the average reader who would like a general introduction to the world's major religions with an emphasis on Islam. All organized religions assume the existence of God as the Creator of the universe and all things in it. The first chapter, Is There a God?, inclines toward this belief and sets the stage for the next five chapters, each on a major world religion. The chapters Angels, Miracles, and Reincarnation reflect mainly the viewpoints of these religions.

The main focus, however, is on Islam. Toward this end the penultimate chapter, Is the Qur'an God's Word? attempts to answer this question in the affirmative, while the final chapter is devoted to two views within Islam regarding the all-important topic of Life after Death. The first is the majority-held view regarding belief in a soul-body dualism, while the second view holds that there is no soul, only a body.

Overall, the intent is to provide a springboard for further reading and discussion by the interested reader.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Trafford Publishing
• Release date: Aug 16, 2007
• ISBN: 9781466957480

Kaiyume Baksh

Kaiyume Baksh is a former school teacher in his native Guyana, medical doctor in Trinidad, and currently a lawyer in Toronto, Canada

Book preview

© Copyright 2007 Kaiyume Baksh.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written prior permission of the author.

Note for Librarians: A cataloguing record for this book is available from Library and Archives

Canada at www.collectionscanada.ca/amicus/index-e.html

ISBN 978-1-4251-1303-2 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4669-5748-0 (eBook)

missing image file

Offices in Canada, USA, Ireland and UK

Book sales for North America and international:

Trafford Publishing, 6E—2333 Government St.,

Victoria, BC V8T 4P4 CANADA

phone [phone] (toll-free 1 888 232 4444)

fax [phone]; email to [e-mail]

Book sales in Europe:

Trafford Publishing (UK) Limited, 9 Park End Street, 2nd Floor

Oxford, UK OX1 1HH UNITED KINGDOM

phone [phone] (local rate 0845 230 9601)

facsimile [phone]; [e-mail]

Order online at:

trafford.com/06-3062

10 9 8 7 6 5 4

To my son

Khalid

through whom I have learnt much

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following for permission to reprint previously published material:

Amana Corporation: Qur’anic quotations throughout the book are mostly from The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, New Edition with Revised Translation, Commentary, and newly compiled Comprehensive Index 1996. Used by permission of Amana Corporation, Maryland, U.S.A..

Khaleelul Iqbal Mohammed: Excerpts from The Jewish and Christian Influences in the Eschatological Imagery of Sahih Muslim by Khaleelul Iqbal Mohammed. Copyright ©1997. Used by permission of the author.

McClelland & Stewart Ltd.: Excerpts from Would You Believe? by Tom Harpur. Used by permission of McClelland & Stewart Ltd., Toronto, Canada.

Oxford University Press: Excerpts from Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne. Used by permission of Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Prometheus Books: Excerpts from Does God Exist? by J. P More-land and Kai Nielsen. Used by permission of Prometheus Books, New York, N.Y., U.S.A..

Simon & Schuster Inc.: Excerpts from The Book of Miracles by Kenneth L. Woodward. Copyright © 2000 by Kenneth L. Woodward. Reprinted with the permission of Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, New York, N.Y., U.S.A..

Zondervan Publishing House: Bible quotations throughout the book are mostly from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing house, Michigan, U.S.A. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

This book is intended for the average reader who would like an introduction to the world’s major religions with an emphasis on Islam.

All organized religions assume the existence of God as the Creator of the universe and all things in it. The first chapter Is There a God? inclines towards this belief and sets the stage for the next five chapters, each on a major world religion. The chapters Angels, Miracles, and Reincarnation reflect mainly the viewpoints of these religions.

The main focus is, however, on Islam. Toward this end the penultimate chapter, Is The Qur’an God’s Word? attempts to answer this question in the affirmative, while the final chapter is devoted to two views within Islam regarding the all-important topic of Life After Death. The first is the majority-held view regarding belief in a soul-body dualism while the second view holds that there is no soul, only a body.

Overall, the intent is to provide a springboard for further reading and discussion by the interested reader.

Contents

INTRODUCTION

Chapter One

IS THERE A GOD?

Introduction

PART ONE

The Question

Motives 1

The status of the idea of God

Some Viewpoints

PART TWO

The Arguments

First Set of Arguments

Second Set of Arguments

Third Set of Arguments

Some resulting questions

A few thoughts

PART THREE

Belief in God makes for a more complete understanding.

Chapter Two

HINDUISM

Introduction

Gods and Deities

Aims

(i)Four human wants

(ii) Four stages of life (ashramas)

(iii) Three paths to salvation

Teachings (scriptural texts) 8

1. Nature Worship and the Four Vedas (before 1000 BCE)

2. The Brahmanas and Priestly Hinduism (1000-800 BCE)

3. The Upanishads: the origins of Indian philosophy (800-400 BCE)

4. The Laws of Manu and Legalistic Hinduism (300 BCE)

5. The Bhagavad Gita and Devotional Hinduism (1CE: Common Era)

6. The Epics and Puranas: Popular Hinduism (1-400 CE)

Doctrines and Practices

Caste

Pilgrimage

Fasting

Festivals

Death and Reincarnation

Attempted Reforms in Hinduism (600 BCE-1965 CE)

Jainism

Buddhism

Sikhism

Brahmo Samaj

Arya Samaj

The Ramakrishna Mission

Hare Krishna

Hinduism and Women

Who can be a Hindu?

Many paths…one summit

Chapter Three

BUDDHISM

The first world religion

The life of the founder, Buddha (around 563-483 BCE)

(a) Prince (age 1-29)

(b) Renunciation (age 29-35)

(c) Enlightenment (age 35)

(d) The Message (age 35-80)

Basic Buddhist Concepts

Anatta

Karma and rebirth

No caste system

Nirvana

God or no God?

Practices

Monastic Life

Lay Worship

Divisions within Buddhism

Zen

Tantrism

The Sacred Scriptures

Canonical

Non-canonical

Evidence

Buddhism today

Chapter 4

JUDAISM

The first major monotheistic religion

Beginnings (1300 BCE and before)

The conception of God in Judaism

The Chosen People

Scriptures and Codes

Medieval and modern Judaism

Holy days, rituals, and festivals

Some Jewish customs

Do Jews still await the Messiah?

Eschatology

Israel and Zionism

Chapter 5

CHRISTIANITY

The most widely disseminated faith

The life of Jesus (1 BCE-30 CE)

The end and the beginning

Doctrines

The conception of God in Christianity

God the Father

God the Son

God the Holy Spirit

The Holy Trinity

Scriptures

Major festivals and rituals

Eschatology

Two perspectives 11

Jesus’ message

History of Christianity

(i) The Beginnings of the Church (to 100 CE)

(ii) Christianity in the Roman Empire (100-325)

(iii) Christianity as the official religion of all Europe (325-1054)

(iv) The Pope as centre of the Church (1054-1517)

(v) The Reformation and after (1517-)

Denominations

Christianity in the world today

Chapter Six

ISLAM

Fastest-growing…most misunderstood religion today?

Background

Muhammad

Scriptures and teachings

The Qur’an

The Hadith

Fundamental beliefs

Essential duties

Prayer

Fasting

Almsgiving (Zakah)

Hajj

Shahadah

Divisions within Islam

Outlook

Chapter Seven

ANGELS

Extraordinary beings of grace, beauty, and power

Major angelic traditions

Origin and nature

Function of angels

What do angels look like?

Are there Hindu angels?

Buddhism and angels 19

Hierarchy?

Why do people want to believe in guardian angels?

Are angels always good?

Fallen angels

Conclusion

Chapter Eight

MIRACLES

A definition

The Buddha

Christianity

Moses

Jesus

Islam

Stigmata

Are stigmata for real?

Capacity of the brain

The Resurrection 11

The meaning of miracles

The Virgin Mary

Marian apparitions and miracle healings

Psychological factors 18

Solar phenomena 19

The healing aspect 20

Compassion 21

The Shroud of Turin

Hinduism

Magic

Conclusion

Chapter Nine

REINCARNATION

A variation in belief

Many doctrines

Hinduism…rebirth with transmigration of the soul

The atman (Sanskrit: ‘soul’ or ‘self’)

Moksha (Salvation)

Judaism…a strong mystical tradition

Early Christian acceptance

Buddhism…rebirth without transmigration of the soul

Islam…no particular interest

Reincarnation or not?

Some arguments

The child and death

A question of belief

Chapter Ten

IS THE QUR’AN GOD’S WORD?

Introduction

Background

The Scriptures

External Evidence7

Internal Evidence 10

Criticizing belief in the revelation

Muhammad

The Qur’an

Chapter Eleven

LIFE AFTER DEATH IN ISLAM

General introduction

PART ONE

Importance of belief in the Hereafter

Two worlds: different but connected

What happens after death?

Barzakh (the first stage)

The Day of the Great Rising (the second stage) 5

Signs of Yaum Al-Qayamah

The Book of Deeds

When will Judgment come?

Absolute justice served

Heaven and Hell (the third stage)

Chastisement in Hell

Will punishment in Hell last forever? 15

Repentance and Intercession

Comfort in Paradise

Women and children in Paradise

PART TWO

Introduction

The Grave

The Hadith

The second advent of Jesus

Al-Masih al-Dajjal, The Antichrist

The turmoil at the end of time 45

Resurrection and Heaven

Summary and conclusion

Some final thoughts

APPENDIX

NOTES

Chapter One

IS THERE A GOD?

Introduction

IS THERE A GOD? is a fundamental question to which there has never been, nor is there likely to be, a definitive answer of yes or no based on irrefutable proof. The answer may, however, be yes or no based on one’s belief.

It is true that many of us have never considered matters of faith in an intellectual manner. From the outset, we might have accepted blindly and/or trustingly, and allowed those beliefs to form our mindset without any further evaluation.

It is also true that there is no proof in a scientific sense that God exists, and this is because the very nature of the inquiry precludes such type of proof. While there may be considerable evidence to be taken into account when trying to find the answer to this question, evidence and proof are by no means one and the same thing.

A belief in the existence or non-existence of God should be based on an overall balance of probabilities. This means that the evidence does not provide total irrefutable proof, and no part of it by itself is sufficient. Cumulatively, though, the evidence should provide a line of reasoning that the believer finds acceptable.

While there is an awareness of the need or desire for gender-neutral language, this chapter will follow the traditional use of the male pronoun when referring to God. This avoids clumsiness and should not be construed as an indication of a patriarchal or sexist view about God.

PART ONE of this chapter contains a brief discussion of some preliminary topics, followed by viewpoints on God and religion by some notable historical figures. PART TWO describes the traditional arguments encountered in a discussion of this question. PART THREE is in a question-and-answer format that illustrates the prevailing opinion that belief in God makes for a more complete understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.

PART ONE

The Question

The idea of God is one that is based on belief. ‘Belief’ means a seemingly rational conviction about what is true and what is false. Belief is also existential in that it concerns what is presumed to exist as fact. Since, therefore, a belief is either true or false, the answer to whether God exists is either yes or no. There are those also who do not hold a belief one way or the other.

In addressing this question, we should consider four specific questions that relate to existence, knowledge, proof, and method:

1.   Does God exist?

2.   If He does, how do I know?

3.   If I know God exists, can this knowledge be proved?

4.   If I can prove God exists, is the proof based on hard evidence as in scientific reasoning, or is it philosophical reasoning, or logical reasoning, or rationalism? In short, what method of proof is used?

Theists (those who believe in the existence of God) answer the first two questions affirmatively but differ on the other two. Atheists (those who do not believe in the existence of God) are negative in their responses to all four questions. Agnostics (those of the view that nothing is known or likely to be known of the existence of God) claim not to know the answer to question (1) and, therefore, not to know the answers to the remaining questions.

Motives ¹

Why would one want to prove that God exists? Similarly, why would one want to prove that God does not exist? An individual may want to prove that God exists

•   to convince and/or convert others

•   to become a believer (if s/he was an atheist or agnostic)

•   to strengthen her belief if she is a believer but has doubts

•   to glorify God

•   for the pursuit of truth.

Another may want to prove that God does not exist for corresponding or similar reasons:

•   to convince and/or convert others (to atheism)

•   to become an atheist (if s/he was a theist or agnostic)

•   to strengthen his unbelief (if he is an atheist)

•   to glorify man

•   for the pursuit of truth.

The status of the idea of God

While we may not know the exact origin of the idea of God (human reasoning? fantasy? fear? mysticism? divine revelation?), we do know that conceptions of God have varied considerably throughout history with the result that a belief in God in some sense has always been predominant in almost all societies. This belief has, however, been challenged since ancient times by skepticism, materialism, atheism, and other forms of disbelief.

The result is that there still exists today, as before, two distinctly opposing views: the case for and the case against. The majority view favours the existence of God, but the proportion of unbelievers is higher in modern societies than in most societies of the past.²

The arguments against the existence of God may be arranged into four categories:

1.    The strongest argument for atheism has always been the prevalence of suffering and evil. The fact that evil exists, and can be attested to universally, seems logically incompatible with the reality of an all-good, all-compassionate, all-providing God.

2.   The reliance by atheism on the apparent ability of science to explain all things natural and human. This makes God unnecessary or useless, since He cannot be empirically verified (tested through the five senses) and analyzed like (other) objects.

3.   Atheism’s epistemological argument (relating to extent of knowledge and degree of acceptance) which holds that rather than trying to prove that reality does not include a God, goes on to challenge the very claim of knowing and understanding the concept of God (theism’s ontological claim-see below).

4.   Objections against each argument for the existence of God. Examples:

      (a)     "’God is mysterious’-one cannot have faith in or prove something one cannot understand;

      (b)      ‘God is observable indirectly in His works’-something indirectly observable must be in theory observable, which God is not" (W. L. Craig).³

The arguments in favour of the existence of God include the following (the first three of which owe their origin to that branch of study called Scholastic Philosophy):

1.   Teleological (or design) argument: the existence of God is evident from the appearance of nature or, to use an analogy, the watch proves the watchmaker. This starts out from the order, appropriateness, and purposefulness of all things natural. Then assuming an intended purposefulness and a universe that, as a whole, is a coherent and efficiently functioning system, and excluding the possibility that everything happens by chance, the conclusion is drawn that there must be a world creator and world orderer (and an ultimate goal).

2.   Cosmological argument: this starts out with the premise that there is change in the world and that such change is brought about by some cause or causes. This chain of causation, going back in time (to a finite, not an infinite, past), needs to be grounded in a first cause which must have been so radically different that it could not have itself been caused. The first cause, therefore, had to have been a self-existing entity.

3.   Ontological argument (relating to the nature of being and-not just existence but-necessary existence): postulates the idea of God (innate in every human being) as the most perfect and necessary being. Then, converting this idea into factual existence without recourse to empirical experience, the conclusion is drawn that this being exists, since actual existence is simply involved in its perfection and necessity. To assume the existence of such a being only in thought and not also in reality would be a contradiction.

4.   Moral argument: premised on the necessity for a moral ideal of perfection and concluding that, without God, moral value and meaning in life are not possible.

5.   Existential argument: there has to be a purpose or meaning for our existence.

Some Viewpoints

The arguments for and against the existence of God have been fueled in part over time by the thinking of known personalities in history who have likely influenced many of us. The following represents a cross-section of the viewpoints of some of these people:

(a) Religion creates a false sense of contentment:

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Frederick Engels (1820-1895), credited with the beginnings of communist thought, criticized religion as arising out of social inequality and as an illusory hope for a better world.

They claimed that religion is the opium of the masses (a drug that gives false sensations of happiness) that acts as a substitute for life in a just and equal society. According to Marxism, religion, being a by-product of social oppression-and not a cause of it-will disappear once the social revolution eliminates inequality. (This may no longer happen in this context because, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, communism is not likely to be a force to be reckoned with).

(a) God is an attempt to escape responsibility:

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French philosopher and major atheistic thinker of the twentieth century. His view is that we live in a godless universe and, since there is no transcendent standard for morality or absolute norm which can provide guidance in moral decisions, we must invent values. As a result we must take responsibility for our own moral decisions, and those who cling to a belief in God are simply refusing to accept this responsibility. Shortly before his death, however, he said (National Review, June 1982): I do not feel that I’m the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but rather someone who is expected, prepared, prefigured, in short, a being whom only a creator God could have put here. Had he lived longer, is it possible that he might have become a theist?

In 1964, Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature but declined to accept it.

(b) Religion is the feeling of dependence on a power greater than ourselves:

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), widely regarded as the founder of Liberal Protestant Theology, developed a definition of religion as the feeling of ultimate dependence that became a very influential one in modern religious thought. He argued that while religion includes both knowledge and action, it is actually based on an immediate self-consciousness in which the self feels totally dependent on something infinitely beyond itself-something called God.

(c) Pascal’s Wager: our only chance of winning eternal happiness is believing and our only chance of losing it is not believing:

According to Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, although faith and knowledge must be distinguished, they must certainly not be separated. Faith always has to do with reason, as reason always has to do with faith. What is to be known and what is to be believed can never be adequately distinguished. We must believe in order to know.

(d) The basis of religion is fear…fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death:

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British philosopher, mathematician, writer, and well-known atheist, said in his autobiography (1968): "Even when one feels nearest to other people, something in one needs obstinately to belong to God and refuses to enter into any earthly communion-at least that is how I should express it if I thought there was a God. It is odd, isn’t it? I feel passionately for this world and many things and people in it, and yet…what is it all? There must be something more important, one feels, though I don’t believe there is. I am haunted. Some ghosts, from some extra-mundane regions, seem always trying to tell me something that I am to repeat for the world, but I cannot understand the message." ⁴

Russell received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950.

(e) Religion is an illusion, a failure to outgrow infantile dependency:

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), widely regarded as the father of psychoanalysis, is responsible for our understanding of the human mind as a multilevel system with conscious, subconscious, and unconscious levels of thought. In his view, neurosis or psychological illness develops when we fail to deal with reality after our rational and irrational natures come into conflict. The result is that we develop a false and unhealthy view of the world. According to Freud, religion is a neurosis that develops when people refuse to let go of the father-figure who has been there all along for them. Religion is, therefore, irrational and unhealthy, and is an illusion produced by psychological projection and human insecurity.

PART TWO

The Arguments

The arguments for and against the existence of God are presented here. For convenience, each argument is put forward by either ‘Theist’ or ‘Atheist’, and this is followed by a discussion. In some cases, there will be a response or comment.

First Set of Arguments

THEIST:

The argument from design, or the teleological argument, holds that a complex and sensitive set of conditions had to exist for the universe to permit the origin and evolution of intelligent life on Earth. In the various fields of science (example physics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics and biochemistry), various discoveries have led to the conclusion that, for life to exist on earth as it does, there had to be a delicate balance of certain quantities of matter relating to the universe. These quantities are governed by ‘constants’ or fixed numerical sums.

If any of these quantities were to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would cease to exist, since the structure of the universe is apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers. We know all too well the significance and necessity of accurate measurements and calculations in so many aspects of our daily lives whether we are, for example, laboratory personnel, mechanics, nurses, scientists, or mathematicians.

For example, in the formation of the universe, the balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to even arise. Had it been lesser or greater than one part in ten billion, no universe would have arisen. In fact, it has been calculated that the odds against the formation of our universe are one out of 10,000,000,000124, a number that exceeds all imagination. ⁵

There is, therefore, a miraculous concurrence of these numerical values with the overall structure of the universe. Since the harmony of these features cannot be explained by mere chance, this must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.

But that is not all. Even the presence of these finely arranged constants and physical quantities does not guarantee that life will arise. In fact, what scientists have discovered is that even given the necessary conditions of the wider design of the universe, the origin of life is fantastically improbable, something to the tune of one in 1040000, an outrageously small probability. ⁶ The origin of DNA (the material responsible for our unique individual makeup, that is, our genetic code) and DNA transcription to RNA, and the process whereby cells organize themselves are all issues too complex to set numbers to.

In the end, we must conclude that the chance of life originating by random ordering of organic molecules is not sensibly different from zero. Put simply, the probability of life originating by chance is almost zero. We feel forced, therefore, to posit the existence of some sort of cosmic intelligence in order to explain the origin of life. ⁷

When the English physicist Isaac Newton (1642-1727) contemplated the universe, he was convinced that he had proof of God’s existence. In Newton’s physics, nature was entirely passive; God was the sole source of activity. Newton wanted to describe the relations between the various celestial and terrestrial bodies in mathematical terms in such a way as to create a coherent and comprehensive system. The notion of gravitational force, which Newton introduced, drew component parts of his system together.

Why had the internal gravity of the celestial bodies not pulled them all together into one huge spherical mass? Because they had been carefully disposed throughout (almost) infinite space with sufficient distance between them to prevent this. Newton explained that this would not have been possible without an intelligent divine force. He did not think it explicable by mere natural causes and so was forced to ascribe it to the counsel and contrivance of a voluntary agent. He believed that this most intricate system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. ⁸

ATHEIST:

The argument, according to the theist, is that a finely-tuned universe will be more likely to exist on the hypothesis of a theistic understanding (that is, involving God) than on an atheistic one.

But it is hard to assign meaningful probabilities to either. How can we know a priori what, if anything, God would be likely to create? After all, God is supposed to be complete and perfect within himself, having no desires or needs. How do we know he would not choose simply to bask in his own eternal glory? After all, any created thing would, by definition, be less perfect than God himself. Further, if God did decide to create something, why a physical universe? Why not hosts of spiritual entities? Surely, God’s innermost purposes and intentions cannot be known; indeed, it seems almost blasphemous to suggest they can.

The assignment of meaningful probabilities upon the hypothesis of atheism is even more difficult. If atheism is correct, if the universe and its laws are all that is or ever has been, we cannot consider the universe, with all its finely-tuned features, to be probable or improbable. That is, if the universe is the ultimate brute fact, it is neither likely nor unlikely, probable or improbable: it simply is. Further, even if the universe were somehow improbable, it is hard to see, on the hypothesis of atheism, how we could ever know this. If we were in the position to witness the births of many worlds-some designed, some undesigned-then we might be in a position to say of any particular world that it had such-and-such a probability of existing undesigned. But we simply are not in such a position. We have absolutely no empirical basis for assigning probabilities to ultimate facts.⁹

And the ultimate fact here is that the universe exists as it is.

The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. It thus becomes rather tempting to apply the same logic of the human watch designer to the designer of an eye, a spider, a wing, or a person. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The problem is really one of explaining statistical improbability, and so it does not help to postulate something more improbable.¹⁰

Further,¹¹ the teleological argument scrutinizes certain effects with a view to discovering the character of their cause. From the traces of foresight, purpose, and adaptation in nature, it infers the existence of a self-conscious being of infinite intelligence and power. At best, it gives us a skilful external contriver working on a pre-existing dead and intractable material the elements of which are, by their own nature, incapable of orderly structures and combinations.

The argument gives us a contriver only and not a creator; and even if we suppose him to be also the creator of his material, it does no credit to his wisdom to create his own difficulties by first creating intractable material and then overcoming its resistance by the application of methods alien to its original nature.

The designer regarded as external to his material must always remain limited by his material, and hence a finite designer whose limited resources compel him to overcome his difficulties after the fashion of a human mechanic.

The truth is that the analogy on which the argument proceeds is of no value at all.

RESPONSE / COMMENT: ¹²

It is wrong, even on the assumption of atheism, to say that the universe (in reference to the constants actually) is neither likely nor unlikely but simply is and that is all there is to it. Counter-factual situations were possible, and the notion that these values could have been otherwise is neither unintelligible nor particularly problematic. Scientists themselves often claim that a number of other possible values for these constants could have been obtained. But the values in the actual world are what they are and they need explanation, which theism provides.

To view this another way, we are comparing (a) a universe with an apparent design and the presence of life and (b) a universe without such apparent design and any life. In fact what exists is one actual universe with a unique set of basic materials and physical constants and it is, therefore, surprising that this unique arrangement is just right for life when it could have been wrong. If it were wrong, no one would have been here to be surprised. We must, therefore, argue in light of what is instead of what is not. This means that if the atheist supports the notion that the universe just is, then s/he needs to argue this, not merely assert it.

Second Set of Arguments

1. Theist’s case

2. Atheist’s case

3. Theist’s response

4. Atheist’s counter response

THEIST:

The cosmological argument views the world as a finite effect and, passing through a series of dependent sequences, related as causes and effects, stops at an uncaused first cause, which must be of a radically different nature in that it is not itself caused. Such a first cause is an important aspect of what theists mean by God.

Consider the premise that God created the universe a finite time ago. This belief is rational in light of both philosophical and scientific support for it. First, however, a word about science and religion.

According to theists, the universe had a definite beginning and is the result of an act of creation of an eternal God. Science can never prove any religious belief to be true any more than it can prove absolute moral values exist or that there is a life after death. This does not mean that science and faith are incompatible or opposites as popular wisdom too often suggests. Science deals with what can be weighed, measured, and observed-the physical world-with so-called empirical evidence. Religious faith goes beyond that to questions of meaning, purpose, and ultimacy-the unseen world of the spirit. It believes that the truth and divine realities it sees alone make sense out of all the rest.

It is one thing to say that science and religion are mutually compatible or that they are different ways of approaching and knowing the same cosmos (universe). It is quite another to confuse their roles or to say that science establishes this or that religious idea. The best that can be said is that philosophy, theology, and natural sciences continue to be dependent on mutual collaboration.

The philosophical approach is based on the impossibility of an infinite past. The impossibility of crossing an actual infinite has sometimes been put by saying that one cannot count to infinity no matter how long one counts. For one will always be at some specific number which could be increased by one to generate another specific number, and this is true even if one were to count forever. ¹³ Now if one cannot cross an infinite, then the past must have been finite.

Put differently, suppose you go back through the events of the past in your mind. You will either come to a beginning or you will not. If you come to a beginning, then the past is finite and the argument is settled. That would be the first event. If you never came to a beginning, then the past is actually infinite and as you go back in your mind, you never could exhaust the events of the past. ¹⁴ But since it has been realized that there must have been a first