By : Allamah Sayyed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi
There is much conflict between the points of views of atheists and those who believe in a Supreme-being Who created the world. Still, there is one important point where both are in complete agreement. Both agree that the basic source or course of the universe is Eternal - has no beginning and no end; was always and will remain for ever. In other words, it is self-existent or 'Wajib-ul-wujud.'
The reason for this idea is very simple: As every thing "in this Universe falls under the category of Mumikinul-Wujud 'Transient', it has equal relation with existence and non-existence. Once these things did not exist; now they exist; sometime in the future they will cease to exist. By their nature, they cannot demand to exist or to cease to exist. Therefore, there MUST be a source or cause to bring them to existence or to terminate their existence.
And (it is the important point) that source or cause should not itself be just a 'Transient'; otherwise it will itself need a source or cause to bring it into existence. And this chain of cause and effect MUST stop on a chain which needs no outside source or cause for its existence. It means that the final source or cause of bringing this universe into existence MUST be 'self-existent.'
It is interesting to note that even the atheists accept this point, because they say that nothing can come out of nothing, and, therefore, the basic source of existence must be eternal. It is from ever and will remain for ever.
Now comes the first difference. The atheists say that, that eternal source of existence is 'Matter'. The believers say that, that eternal source of existence is God. Here it is enough to establish a common ground of belief, and that is the faith that the basic source or cause of the existence of the universe is Eternal - without beginning and without end.
A./ By its very definition, Eternal is Self-existent, it could never have been non-existent nor can it ever be terminated. In other words, it has no beginning because if we suppose for it a beginning we must admit that it was non-existent before that beginning. But we already know that it could never have been non-existent. Therefore, we must accept that the Eternal has no beginning, it is ever - existent.
B./ By the same reason, it can have no end. It is ever-lasting, because it can never be non-existent.
C./ The Eternal must be self-sufficient. In other words it should be above all needs; it should not be in need of anything. Because, if it needs anything, it will be dependent upon that thing. But by its very definition, the Eternal does not depend upon anything, as it is Self-existent In other words, the Eternal must have absolute perfection.
D/. The Eternal can be neither compound nor mixture. A compound or mixture depends for its existence upon its part or components. As we accept that Eternal is Self-existent, we can not admit that its existence depends upon its components or parts. Moreover; look at any mixture or compound. You will find that the components or parts existed BEFORE the resulting mixture or compound. As the Eternal has no beginning, we cannot say that anything preceded it in existence. Otherwise, we will have to imagine a beginning point for the Eternal whichi is admittedly wrong.
E. /The Eternal can be neither a body nor a surface, neither a line nor a point. A body, by its very nature, needs space to be in. As we have already seen, the Eternal should not be in need of anything. It follows that the Eternal cannot be a body. In real existence, a surface needs a body; a line needs a surface; a point needs a line. Eternal needs nothing. Therefore, the Eternal is neither a surface, line nor a point. Nor can it be anything which is found in a body, like dimension, colour, smell, position, condition or other such things which are called accident ,(Aradh) in philosophical language, because such things depend on a substance or body for their existence - they are not self-existent.
F./ The Eternal should not be subject to any change, because if that change be for the better, it would mean that the Eternal before that change was not perfect, i.e., it was in need of something. But we have already said that the Eternal cannot need anything. And if that change be for worse, it would mean that the Eternal is now in need of something to make it perfect. And, as just explained, it is not possible. And if that change is just to the same level of perfection, then what is the need or use of such a change?
In fact, the changes may occur either in a substance (body, matter) or in its incorporeal qualities like colour, dimension etc. But it has just been proved that the Eternal can be neither a substance nor an incorporeal quality of another substance.
G/. The Eternal must be a living being. Because it is agreed that the Eternal is the source and course of the existence of the Universe. And also it is agreed that nothing can come out of nothing. Now, as we find abundance of life in the Universe, we have to admit that the source of all these living things must itself be All-Life. It could not bestow life if it had itself no life.
H. / The Eternal source of the world must be all-knowing (Omniscient). The intricate design of a single atom shows the perfect wisdom embodied in it. The elaborate system and perfect design of the universe leaves no doubt that whoever or whatever is the source or cause of the universe is al1-knowing.
I. / By the same reasoning the Eternal source or cause of the universe must be all-powerfull (Omnipotent).
THE atheists maintain that the matter is the Eternal source of the universe. It needs no great intelligence to see that matter does not possess any of the qualities of the Eternal mentioned earlier. Matter has a body and as such it needs space. It is divisible and as such it is made up of several parts. It is constantly changing. But the atheists maintain that matter has no beginning and no end; and, therefore, it is eternal. But the recent theories challenge these two last stands of atheism.
What is 'matter? It is a "Substance of which a physical thing is made," Or "Anything which has the property of occupying space and the attributes of gravity and inertia." Before going further it is necessary to point out one important thing. There are, in every branch of science, certain ideas which have no existence in reality. Yet they are assumed to exist in reality just to make it easy for the beginners to understand the arguments of that subject. Take for example Geometry. They teach the children that 'point' is a thing having neither length, breadth nor depth. Such a thing has no physical existence. They teach that 'line' is a thing, having only length, but neither breadth nor depth, This also has no physical existence. In fact, it is only by taking a body (which has all three dimensions -length, breadth and depth) and sub-dividing it in imagination that we can understand the conception of surface, line and point.
Still students of geometry are taught as though these things have real physical existence. It is done not to deceive the student, but to make it easier for him to understand geometry.
Likewise, in chemistry, the student is taught that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But it is just a stepping stone so that a student can understand further arguments.
Also, it is for this reason that chemistry students are taught separate conservation of matter and energy. But read the following quotation carefully:-"In classical mechanics, mass and energy are
considered to be conserved separately; in atomic and nuclear reactions, matter can be converted into energy and vice - versa......., So far as chemistry is concerned, the law of conservation of matter, i.e., matter can neither be created nor destroyed can be assumed to be true."
So you see, the theory that matter is eternal (it is neither created nor destroyed) is just an assumption for the purpose of simplifying the subject for chemistry students.
It is a fact that matter changes into energy. So it is not a thing everlasting nor is it a thing which does not change. Thus, we see that matter does not pass the test of eternity, it is not without end, and it is not without change. And as it is supposed that energy can be changed into matter, it is admitted that matter has a beginning. So it is not eternal , it is not without beginning.
It is assumed that when the matter changes into energy, it exists in that form, and, thus they try to prove that matter is ever-lasting. But what is Energy? It is "Capacity of matter to perform work as the result of its motion or its position in relation to forces acting upon it." So, the energy is not a thing having independent existence. It is an incorporeal thing, i.e., it depends upon a matter or substance for its existence. By its very defintion, it cannot be found except in a matter. As energy is a dependent thing, it cannot be an eternal thing.
We have already accepted the atheist's notion that nothing comes out of nothing. Now, we see in the universe a most intelligent design and pattern and a most perfect co-ordination in this unparalleled system. And we see it teeming with life. And, admittedly, matter has no life, and hence no power or knowledge. Had the matter been the cause or source of the universe, the universe would have been without life; it would have been without system and co-ordination, because it could not give to universe what it did not possess itself. Is there still need to emphasize in so many words that matter cannot be considered as the source of universe.
Here I give the translation of the discussion of the Holy Prophet (P) with the atheists:-
The Holy Prophet asked them: "What is the reason of your belief that the universe has neither beginning nor end and that these things are from ever and will remain for ever?
Atheist: We believe only what we see. As we have not seen the beginning of the universe, therefore we say that it has always existed, and as we have not seen its extinction, we say that it will remain for ever
Holy Prophet: Well, have you seen that the universe is without beginning and without end?
Atheists: No, we have not seen its being without beginning nor have we seen its being without end.
Holy Prophet: Then how do you believe in its eternity? And why should your view be preferred to the view of that person who believes the universe to be transient because he has not seen it being without beginning or without end? Then after some more arguments the Holy Prophet asked: "Can you tell me whether the days (time) which have passed on this earth were finite (limited) or infinite (limitless)? If you say that the time which has passed so far was limitless, then how did the later time come in if the former did not pass away? "And if you say that the time is finite (limited) then you will have to admit that it is not eternal."
Atheists: Yes, it is finite.
Holy Prophet: Well. you were saying that universe is eternal, not created nor finite. Do you realise what is the implication of your admission that time is finite? What were you denying? What have YOU admitted?
Atheist accepted that their belief was not correct. Incidentally, this argument of the Holy Prophet (P) shows that 'time' has an unbreakable relation with matter. Otherwise, he could not have introduced the element of time in the discussion about matter. The beauty of this can best be appreciated by only those Who have studied the theory of Relativity.
The most simple arguments of ancients on this topic are still valid, inspite of all the complexity of the modem science.