Presented by Zia H Shah MD

In this report, we analyze each interviewee featured in Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s video “Asking Ultimate Questions” and summarize their position. We then provide a rigorous refutation of their key arguments from scientific, philosophical, and theological (Islamic and broader Abrahamic) perspectives. Each refutation addresses specific claims respectfully yet critically, demonstrating where scientific reasoning, logical scrutiny, or Islamic theological principles challenge the interviewee’s conclusions.

Frank Wilczek – “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Summary of Wilczek’s Argument: Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek suggests that the existence of something is not surprising – what’s surprising would be a state of nothing. He has noted that according to modern physics, “nothing” (in the sense of an empty vacuum) is inherently unstable, so the natural state of reality is something rather than nothing. In Wilczek’s view, quantum physics allows universes to arise without a divine creator; an “empty” universe would actually require miraculous intervention to remain nothing, whereas a full universe can emerge from physical laws spontaneously. Thus, he implies that we don’t need God to explain why the universe exists – the laws of physics themselves almost guarantee something will exist.

Refutation: Scientifically, Wilczek’s claim conflates the physical vacuum with the philosophical concept of “nothingness.” In physics, even a vacuum is governed by quantum fields and laws – it’s a state that can fluctuate and produce particle-antiparticle pairs. But those very laws and quantum fields are something, not absolute nothing. Saying “nothing is unstable” really means empty space with laws is unstable. The question then shifts: why do those laws exist at all? Physics has no answer to why there is a rule that “nothing” should decay into something. Philosophically, Wilczek’s answer is a tautology – he presupposes a framework of laws in which nothingness can’t hold. The ultimate question remains: why is there a universe (with laws) rather than absolutely nothing? If we imagine true metaphysical nothing – no space, no time, no laws – it’s not evident that “something” would inevitably appear. Wilczek’s argument begs the question by assuming a backdrop of laws that need explanation themselves. From a theological perspective, Islam emphatically holds that only God’s will can bring something out of nothing. The Quran states that Allah is the Originator of the heavens and earth – creation ex nihilo (from nothing) occurs by His command (“Be, and it is”) not by natural instability (Qur’an 2:117). Ironically, Wilczek’s quip that maintaining nothingness would require a divine Agent is turned on its head: it is precisely a divine Agent that can choose to create a world or not. If “nothingness” by itself cannot persist, that points to a metaphysical necessity for a creative force to explain why there are laws and existence at all. In Islamic theology, the fact that the universe exists contingent on finely balanced laws is seen as evidence of the Creator rather than a replacement for Him. In summary, science can describe how a vacuum state might transition to a universe given laws of quantum physics, but science cannot tell us why those laws exist or why there is a reality that obeys them. Philosophical reasoning and theology fill this gap: it is more coherent that an eternal, self-existent God willed the universe into being, rather than “nothing” magically turning into something without cause. As the Quran rhetorically asks: “Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?” (Qur’an 52:35). Thus, Wilczek’s attempt to avoid God with physics doesn’t succeed – it merely shifts the ultimate question one step back.

Steven Weinberg – “Is the universe pointless?”

Summary of Weinberg’s Argument: Physicist Steven Weinberg famously remarked, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Weinberg argues that science has uncovered no hint of cosmic purpose or divine plan. In his view, the vastness and impersonal nature of physical law make humanity seem an accidental byproduct rather than the center of any design. He notes that natural theology (finding God in nature) has failed – scientists no longer see evidence of God’s hand in the equations or the data. While Weinberg concedes science cannot disprove purpose, he stresses that all available evidence suggests a universe that runs on indifferent laws, with no special accommodation for human life. He thus leans towards a bleak conclusion: if there is no scientific sign of God or ultimate goal, the universe probably has no purpose, and any meaning must be created by humans themselves in an otherwise cold cosmos.

Refutation: Weinberg’s argument, rooted in the success of science, contains a category mistake: science, by its nature, describes how things work, not why they exist or what their ultimate purpose is. The absence of “purpose” in scientific descriptions is not proof that no purpose exists; it only reflects the methodological limits of science (it deliberately brackets questions of meaning to focus on mechanism). Even Weinberg acknowledges that deciding whether the universe has a point is “outside the province of science”. Thus, his stance that the universe seems pointless is an inference colored by personal skepticism rather than a scientific deduction. Philosophically, to declare life or the universe meaningless is to make a metaphysical claim – and Weinberg offers no logical proof, only an impression. One could turn his own observation against him: he admits science cannot decide there is no point, so asserting “there is no point” goes beyond science and arguably beyond what one can justify with evidence. In fact, the very comprehensibility of the universe that Weinberg marvels at can be seen as evidence for an underlying meaning or Mind. Why is the universe comprehensible at all? Why do elegant mathematical laws exist that our minds (against all odds of evolution) can understand? Weinberg calls this rational order an “act of faith” that even atheistic scientists must take. Such order is very much consistent with a purposeful Creator, whereas a truly pointless, random cosmos is under no obligation to be governed by strict laws or to be intelligible. The fine-tuning of those laws – Weinberg was well aware that the constants of nature allow life only in a narrow range – suggests an underlying purpose or design, not a fluke (Weinberg disliked this implication, hence his support for multiverse ideas to avoid the “design” problem). From an Islamic theological viewpoint, Weinberg’s conclusion is firmly rejected. The Quran explicitly states that God did not create the heavens and earth “in vain” or “for mere play” (Qur’an 21:16; 38:27). Believers declare, “Our Lord, You have not created all this without purpose – glory be to You!”. Islam teaches that the universe has profound purpose: it is a testing ground and a sign of God’s attributes. The very sentiment of pointlessness that Weinberg bemoans is addressed by scripture 14 centuries ago: “Did you think that We created you in vain (for no reason), and that to Us you will not be returned?” corpus.quran.com. Thus, theology provides an answer where Weinberg finds none. Additionally, Weinberg’s melancholic recognition that living without belief in God is difficult and less comforting points to an existential reality: humans yearn for meaning. Islam (like other Abrahamic faiths) affirms that this yearning is not a cruel joke – it corresponds to real purpose endowed by our Creator. In sum, scientifically Weinberg is right that physics by itself won’t find God in a collider or telescope – but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Philosophically, his conclusion of “no meaning” is an unsupported leap; it ignores positive arguments for meaning (e.g. cosmic fine-tuning, moral realism, the very intelligibility of nature). And theologically, we counter that the universe’s purpose is knowable through revelation: to recognize and worship the Almighty, and to develop our souls for the life to come. The universe is a sign of God, not a substitute for Him. Weinberg’s own awe at the universe’s grandeur is, in Islamic terms, fitrah (the innate disposition) seeking its fulfillment in God. The cure for a sense of cosmic emptiness is not to pretend we can manufacture meaning from thin air (a stance many philosophers find unsatisfactory and self-defeating), but to discover the meaning woven into reality by its Creator. The Quran invites precisely this discovery, rather than the despair of pointlessness that Weinberg reluctantly articulates.

Read further in PDF file: