Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Abstract

This essay presents a comparative analysis of two works that explore the intersection of modern cosmology and theology: Zia H. Shah MD’s “Lord of the Worlds: Quranic Verses, Multiverse, and the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos” and Umar Nasser’s “Cosmic Dice: God, Chance & the Multiverse” (RationalReligion.co.uk). We examine how Shah’s 2025 article builds upon and expands the content of Nasser’s 2018 article along three axes: scientific insights (covering cosmology, the fine-tuning of physical laws, and multiverse models), philosophical implications (questions of design, contingency, and metaphysics), and theological/Quranic reflections (interpretation of Islamic scripture—especially the concept of “Rabb al-‘Alamīn” or “Lord of the worlds”—and notions of divine purpose). Shah’s article integrates detailed cosmological data and Quranic exegesis to a greater extent, providing a more expansive treatment of each theme. A comparative table summarizes key similarities and differences. In conclusion, a thematic epilogue reflects on the broader significance of theological cosmology in light of contemporary science, suggesting that modern discoveries (like cosmic fine-tuning and the multiverse) can deepen rather than diminish spiritual insight.

Introduction

The relationship between cutting-edge cosmology and theological worldview is explored in both Umar Nasser’s “Cosmic Dice: God, Chance & the Multiverse” (published on RationalReligion in 2018 and updated 2024) and Zia H. Shah MD’s “Lord of the Worlds: Quranic Verses, Multiverse, and the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos” (2025). Nasser’s article – written from an Islamic perspective – addresses the fine-tuning of the universe (the observation that the fundamental constants of nature appear “just right” to allow life) and critically examines the multiverse hypothesis as a popular atheistic explanation rationalreligion.co.uk rationalreligion.co.uk. His goal is apologetic: to argue that even if a multiverse exists, the appearance of design in nature remains best explained by a purposeful Creator rationalreligion.co.uk rationalreligion.co.uk. Shah’s later work covers similar ground but in a more comprehensive and devotional manner. As an Islamic scholar and science commentator, Shah not only reviews the scientific concepts of fine-tuning and multiverse theory, but also delves deeply into Quranic exegesis and classical Islamic thought on the plurality of worlds. His essay explicitly integrates cosmology, philosophy, and theology, aiming to show a “harmonious convergence” between the Quran’s vision and modern cosmological ideas. In what follows, we compare the two articles in detail across three key dimensions: their scientific discussions of the cosmos, their philosophical reasoning about design and existence, and their theological reflections on scripture and divine purpose.

Scientific Insights: Cosmology, Fine-Tuning, and the Multiverse

Both Nasser and Shah ground their discussions in the dramatic scientific insights that contemporary cosmology has yielded, but Shah’s treatment is notably more expansive and detailed.

Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos – Definition and Examples: Nasser’s “Cosmic Dice” opens by establishing the widespread scientific recognition that our universe is extraordinarily fine-tuned for life rationalreligion.co.uk. He explains that a host of physical constants and initial conditions fall within narrow life-permitting ranges, such that “even tiny changes” would render the universe inhospitable rationalreligion.co.uk. He cites Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg – an outspoken atheist – who admitted how “surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it”, noting that life would be impossible if any of several constants were slightly different rationalreligion.co.uk. This acknowledgment, also echoed by other eminent physicists, sets the stage for the puzzle of fine-tuning. Shah’s article fully concurs and amplifies this scientific context. He provides a clear definition: “fine-tuning refers to the observation that many independent parameters – physical constants and initial conditions set at the Big Bang – fall within a very narrow range of values such that, if they were even slightly different, the universe would be lifeless”. Shah goes further by cataloguing specific examples of fine-tuning in nature, something Nasser’s treatment largely keeps at a summary level. Shah highlights, for instance:

• Gravity’s Strength: If gravity were slightly stronger or weaker (on the order of a 1 in 10^40 adjustment), the universe would either recollapse rapidly or never form galaxies – in either case, life would not emerge.
• Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy): The vacuum energy density (Λ) is astoundingly small (≈10^-122 in Planck units), yet if it were even a few times larger, cosmic expansion would have torn matter apart before galaxies could form. Such precision has been called “the most spectacular fine tuning problem in physics,” as Leonard Susskind remarked.
• Strong Nuclear Force: A slight weakening of the strong force would prevent complex nuclei from forming (only hydrogen would exist), whereas a slight strengthening would cause almost all hydrogen to fuse into heavier elements, leaving no fuel for stable stars. In either scenario, chemistry and life as we know it could not exist.

Shah’s inclusion of these concrete cases (with quantitative estimates and references to scientific literature) underlines the fine-tuning argument’s empirical basis. Nasser’s article, while less granular, conveys the same awe at the “lottery-winning” nature of a life-permitting cosmos – he uses the metaphor of a cosmic dice rolled against staggering odds to emphasize that our universe is a rare, special outcome rationalreligion.co.uk rationalreligion.co.uk. Both authors agree that this phenomenon “cries out for explanation” beyond sheer chance.

Multiverse Hypothesis – Explaining Fine-Tuning by Many Universes: A central scientific focus of both articles is the multiverse theory – the idea that our universe might be only one of many universes, each with potentially different physical parameters rationalreligion.co.uk. Nasser introduces the multiverse as “the most popular alternative” to invoking a designing God for fine-tuning rationalreligion.co.uk. He succinctly describes the concept with vivid imagery: multiple universes as “bubbles” in a frothy cosmic ocean, each bubble-universe having its own laws and constants rationalreligion.co.uk. If there are enough such universes – say, on the order of 10^40,000 in one scenario – then it becomes less implausible that one universe “hit the jackpot” by chance and ended up life-permittingrationalreligion.co.uk. In Nasser’s words, just as rolling many dice at once increases the chance of getting a desired result, an ensemble of universes “vastly expands reality’s probability space”, making it inevitable that some universe would, by luck, have the right conditionsrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk. Shah’s article picks up this same explanatory thread but covers it in a more systematic and updated fashion. He defines the multiverse as the hypothesis that “reality might encompass many universes in addition to our own,” so that what we call the Universe is just one region of a far larger existence. Shah emphasizes that this is not mere science fiction; multiple lines of theoretical physics motivate the multiverse idea. He proceeds to summarize several distinct multiverse models that scientists have proposed:

• Inflationary “Bubble” Multiverse: In eternal inflation theory, space-time undergoes continual exponential expansion, sprouting bubble universes that pinched off like pockets of a growing foam. Our universe would be one bubble among potentially infinite others. Each bubble might have different physics, born from different “dial settings” during the symmetry-breaking of inflation.
• Quantum Many-Worlds: The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics (originating with Hugh Everett) implies that every quantum event branches reality into parallel outcomes. This yields a kind of quantum multiverse of branching universes containing all possible histories. (Shah notes, however, that these branches share the same fundamental constants and laws – they differ only in how events play out, so this model is a less direct explanation for fine-tuning differences.)
• String Theory Landscape: Shah alludes to the idea (familiar from string theory and M-theory) that a vast landscape of possible vacuum configurations could give rise to on the order of 10^500 different metastable universes, each with its own low-energy physics. This “landscape multiverse” arises from high-dimensional theory and similarly suggests that every combination of physical parameters might be realized somewhere.

By enumerating these scenarios, Shah’s article demonstrates a broader engagement with contemporary cosmological science. The effect is to show that the multiverse hypothesis has serious scientific pedigree – it is not ad hoc fantasy but stems from real efforts to solve puzzles in physics (like the initial conditions for inflation, or reconciling quantum and gravity theories). Nasser’s piece, written earlier, focuses primarily on the basic multiverse notion (especially the bubble universe idea popularized by Sir Martin Rees and others) rather than surveying multiple theories. Nonetheless, both authors describe the anthropic reasoning at the core of the multiverse explanation for fine-tuning: if countless universes exist with random parameters, it is inevitable that one of them will, by chance, have the right conditions for life – and naturally, we find ourselves in that lucky universe (because we couldn’t exist in the others)rationalreligion.co.uk. Shah phrases this succinctly: the multiverse is like a cosmic lottery – with enough tickets (universes), even extremely improbable wins (a finely-tuned cosmos) will occur somewhere. Thus, at first glance, a vast multiverse “dissolves the appearance of fine-tuning” by brute-force statistics. In both articles, this sets up the critical question: Does the multiverse idea truly explain away fine-tuning, or does fine-tuning resurface at a higher level?

Empirical and Theoretical Considerations: An important scientific aspect touched on by both is the issue of testability. Nasser notes briefly that the multiverse is inherently hard to verify – other universes, if completely disjoint, cannot be observed – but he saves most critical analysis of this for the philosophical discussion. Shah explicitly addresses this scientific concern: he acknowledges the “provocative” nature of multiverse proposals which venture into “realms that may be forever beyond direct observation”. He even references that physicists have attempted indirect tests (such as searching the cosmic microwave background for anomalies hinting at bubble collisions) but with no conclusive results. This leads him to observe that much multiverse talk “lies in the realm of theoretical metaphysics as much as physics”, quoting scientists who wryly admit that postulating countless unseen universes is a way to do metaphysics “without using the G-word” (i.e. avoiding the word “God”). In summary, Shah provides a richer scientific panorama – detailing fine-tuning cases, multiple multiverse types, and the current status of evidence – whereas Nasser’s earlier article gives a solid but streamlined account aimed at setting up the theological argument. Both agree on the scientific facts of fine-tuning and fairly present the multiverse as a serious (if speculative) hypothesis. The divergence comes in how they appraise the sufficiency of the multiverse as an explanation, which veers into philosophy.

Philosophical Implications: Design, Contingency, and Metaphysics

After laying out the scientific scenario, both authors turn to philosophical analysis. They interrogate whether the multiverse concept truly eliminates the need for a Designer or merely shifts the question of design up one level. Shah’s discussion is considerably more extensive, bringing in notions of contingency, necessary being, and even cosmological theorems, thereby deepening the philosophical inquiry that Nasser had begun.

Multiverse as (In)Adequate Explanation – “Turtles All the Way Down”: Nasser’s “Cosmic Dice” makes a few key philosophical points to argue that a multiverse cannot ultimately circumvent the inference of design. First, he contends that a truly infinite multiverse is problematic, meaning we cannot assume literally every possible universe existsrationalreligion.co.uk. He offers a commonsense reasoning: if there is a number n of universes, one could always conceive n+1 – thus n cannot be actually infinite (for infinity cannot be increased)rationalreligion.co.uk. Therefore, any multiverse would comprise a finite (albeit very large) number of universes, which in turn means it would not exhaust all possibilitiesrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk. Some extremely special conditions might still be absent even in a huge finite ensemble, so one cannot guarantee that fine-tuning is fully “covered” by sheer plenitude. More pointedly, Nasser argues that even if a multiverse exists, it too must be set up correctly to produce life-bearing worldsrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk. This is his “turtles all the way down” objection: pushing the problem up one level just yields a bigger design question. He writes, “what has finely-tuned the multiverse to produce a life-permitting universe like ours? … Perhaps we can call it a megaverse? … Where do we stop?”rationalreligion.co.uk. In a witty analogy, he notes that multiplying the number of eggs does not produce a chicken – even an infinite carton of eggs still requires an explanation for how the eggs came to be. Thus, Nasser concludes that the multiverse “does not explain away fine-tuning; it just displaces it”, leaving us with a finely-tuned multiverse in need of a Designerrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk.

Shah’s article echoes these arguments almost point for point, but substantiates each with further analysis and references. He explicitly headlines a section: “Fine-Tuning Redux: Why the Multiverse Doesn’t Solve It All.” Here, Shah enumerates several reasons a multiverse fails as a complete explanation:

• The Multiverse Itself Requires Fine-Tuning: Shah illustrates this with the example of eternal inflation. The hypothetical inflaton field driving bubble formation must have parameters in just the right range to produce a variety of bubble universes with differing constants. If those parameters were “off,” inflation might produce no bubbles, or all bubbles might be essentially the same – either way, you don’t get the diverse ensemble needed to hit a life-friendly draw. Indeed, cosmologists acknowledge that the inflationary mechanism needed special initial conditions itself. As one scientific summary puts it, inflationary multiverses still require “certain parameters to take on particularly precise values”, so “fine-tuning is not eliminated; it is pushed a step back into the origin of the multiverse itself.”. This closely mirrors Nasser’s point, reinforcing it with expert testimony. The rhetorical question follows naturally: “Who or what fine-tuned the multiverse mechanism?”. Shah thus affirms that the design inference re-emerges at the level of a multiverse’s laws – exactly the “turtle stacking” problem Nasser described.
• Speculative (Infinite) Assumptions and Parsimony: Shah tackles the common assumption that there are enough universes (sometimes imagined infinite) to make our existence likely. He notes that we have no evidence of a huge ensemble of universes – it’s a theoretical extrapolation adopted mainly to avoid singular explanations. Invoking potentially infinite unobserved entities to explain one observed universe is hardly a more parsimonious explanation than invoking one unobserved God. In fact, Shah cites critics who dub this move an “inverse gambler’s fallacy”: we know our universe is highly improbable, so we assume many unseen “dice rolls” happened to make it less special, without direct evidence of those rolls. This is a subtle philosophical critique of overusing the anthropic principle. Nasser’s article hints at this issue by emphasizing the impossibility of actual infinities and the speculative leap of faith atheists take with multiverse (he quips that atheists are “jumping to random conclusions” by positing other universes without proofrationalreligion.co.uk). Shah provides a more formal version: “the multiverse idea asks us to accept a potentially infinite unseen reality to avoid one unseen God”, which may not be the “pinnacle of scientific parsimony.” He even quotes renowned cosmologist George Ellis, who argued that many multiverse discussions stray into metaphysics rather than empirically grounded science.
• Lack of Testability: As mentioned in the scientific section, Shah underscores that a multiverse is, by definition, hard to test or falsify if other universes are causally disconnected. This means using the multiverse as an explanatory escape hatch edges into non-empirical philosophy. He notes the “profound irony” that in trying to avoid a metaphysical explanation involving God, one ends up embracing another metaphysical entity – a plethora of unseen universes. Nasser’s piece does not delve deeply into the philosophy of science, but Shah’s does: it highlights how some scientists candidly admit that discussing multiple unobservable universes is effectively a way of doing metaphysics in scientific guise.
• Contingency and the Question “Why This Multiverse?”: Perhaps Shah’s most significant expansion of the discussion lies in invoking the classical cosmological argument frame. He asks, even if a multiverse exists, “Why that multiverse? Why should reality be such that a multiverse with those particular laws exists?”. In other words, the multiverse itself would be a contingent reality – it could conceivably have been otherwise or not existed at all. Thus, we still require an explanation for why there is something (a multiverse with life-permitting potential) rather than nothing, or why these meta-laws obtain and not others. Shah quotes philosopher (and famed ex-atheist) Antony Flew: no matter how far you push back the chain of explanation – even to a multiverse – “their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws”. Ultimately, the multiverse would need a necessary foundation just as a single universe would. Shah invokes the concept of a Necessary Being in classical theology: something that exists by its own nature and grounds the existence of all contingent things. In philosophy of religion (Islamic, Christian, etc.), God is identified as that necessary, self-explaining reality. A multiverse hypothesis, by contrast, simply posits more contingent entities and physical frameworks – it does not answer the ultimate “why” question but “kicks the can down the road”. Nasser’s article touches on this line of reasoning more implicitly: by asserting design as the “inevitable conclusion,” he implies that an intelligent first cause is the only satisfying stopper to the infinite regress of probabilistic explanationsrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk. Shah makes this line of reasoning explicit and robust, even referencing an editorial from the journal Nature which concedes that explaining fine-tuning with a multiverse is “ultimately unsatisfactory because the multiverse cannot explain itself.”. He thus presses the metaphysical point: an explanation of everything must lie beyond the contingent physical order altogether.
• Origin of the Cosmos (or Multiverse): Both authors also note that the origin of the universe (or multiverse) is not resolved by multiplying universes. Nasser briefly alludes that science seems to be “traversing the stages of grief” in avoiding a beginning – the shock of Big Bang implying creation, then denial, then bargaining with a multiverserationalreligion.co.uk. Shah provides concrete scientific backing here: he cites the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a well-known result in cosmology, which shows that any universe (or inflating multiverse) that is expanding overall “cannot be extended infinitely into the past” – it must have a past temporal boundary, i.e. a beginning. As Vilenkin said, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” This beginning of the entire multiverse (a “meta-Big Bang of all Big Bangs”) would lie outside known physics and again point to something transcendental to space-time. Thus, Shah reinforces that an eternal, self-existent physical cosmos is not supported by current science; the question of an originating cause remains open, and if anything, a multiverse only “magnifies the miracle to be explained”, because it postulates an even larger reality whose existence is astonishing. Nasser’s piece did not reference the BGV theorem or similar, but his overall conclusion was aligned: modern science keeps pointing back to the need for an intelligent cause, even if unwillinglyrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk.

In sum, philosophically, both authors arrive at the conclusion that the fine-tuning of the cosmos strongly indicates purposeful design – and that the multiverse hypothesis, rather than eliminating this indication, either fails outright or even reinforces it. Nasser concludes with what he calls the “inevitable conclusion”: “the universe looks like it was designed for life because it was designed for life”rationalreligion.co.uk. He supports this by quoting Sir Fred Hoyle’s famous line that a “superintellect has monkeyed with physics” (i.e. the numbers in nature are so tailored that design is almost undeniable)rationalreligion.co.uk. Shah’s conclusion similarly argues that “the fine-tuning of nature, coupled with the possibility of a multiverse, still points compellingly toward the existence of God”. He asserts that the multiverse, “far from being a ‘God substitute’, is itself in need of an explanation” that God best provides. Shah even quotes theologian Alvin Plantinga’s quip that if many universes exist, God’s “creative genius” is only further confirmed. In Shah’s formulation, a multiverse would not remove the signature of design but rather enlarge it: “the more extensive and variegated the creation, the more awe it evokes for its Creator”. Thus, on philosophical grounds, Shah amplifies Nasser’s apologetic argument with deeper exploration of why only a divine Necessary Being can ultimately ground the ordered existence of one world or many.

Theological and Quranic Reflections: “Rabb al-‘Alamīn”, Scriptural Interpretation, and Divine Purpose

Perhaps the most pronounced way in which Shah’s “Lord of the Worlds” expands upon Nasser’s “Cosmic Dice” is in the realm of theological and Quranic reflections. Nasser’s article is indeed written on a platform devoted to harmonizing Islam with reason, and it sprinkles in Quranic references to reassure readers that the idea of multiple worlds is compatible with Islamic belief. However, Shah’s entire essay is structured as a Quranic commentary (on verses like 1:1–2 and 45:36–37) enriched by scientific discussion. He delves far deeper into scripture, classical Islamic scholarship, and theological implications regarding God’s attributes and purpose.

“Lord of the Worlds” – Classical Interpretation: The foundational Quranic concept both authors invoke is “Rabb al-‘Ālamīn” (Lord of the worlds). Nasser’s use of it is brief but pointed: after discussing the plurality of universes, he notes “Naturally, this pluralistic perspective is entirely in accord with a theistic outlook, where God creates multiple realms of creation, each harboring life. After all, in its opening lines, the Holy Qur’an states: ‘All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds’ (Qur’an 1:2).” rationalreligion.co.uk. This assures the reader that believing in many worlds poses no threat to the Quranic worldview – on the contrary, the Quran itself speaks of multiple worlds under one God. Shah’s article takes this line and substantially develops it. At the very outset, Shah emphasizes that the Qur’an repeatedly describes Allah as “Lord of the worlds” (not just one world). He cites Qur’an 1:1–2, 7:54, and 45:36–37, all of which use this title, thereby “clearly inviting readers to think in terms of a plurality of realms or worlds under one ultimate Lord.”. Shah then asks: what did this term mean to early Muslim scholars, and could it encompass realities beyond the single universe we know?

Drawing on classical exegesis, Shah explains that the prevalent interpretation of “al-‘ālamīn” (the worlds) in the Islamic tradition is very broad: essentially “everything in existence apart from God”, every category of creation across time and space. He quotes the medieval commentator Ibn Kathīr’s definition: *“the worlds” means “every land, sky, habitat, and even the hereafter” – all realms of creatures, visible or invisible, are encompassed. Other scholars enumerated worlds of humans, animals, jinn (spirit beings), angels, etc., and even related an ancient narration that God created 18,000 worlds, of which our Earth is just one. Shah acknowledges such narrations are extra-scriptural and not verifiable, but they illustrate that early Muslims were comfortable with the idea of innumerable realms in creation. The Quran’s use of the plural “worlds” inherently implies “multiple spheres of creation, all under one sovereign God”. In short, classical Islamic thought never limited God’s creative domain to a single physical planet or even a single universe – it always allowed for abundance in creation.

Shah further supports this by referencing Quranic passages that hint at plurality in creation. For example, Qur’an 65:12 states “Allah is He who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof. His command descends among them…”. While many traditional scholars interpreted “seven earths” as seven layers or divisions of this Earth, Shah notes that some did not rule out a meaning of seven distinct terrestrial worlds. He cites modern commentators who find this verse “highly suggestive of a large number of multiple ‘heavens and earths’”, especially if “seven” is taken symbolically to indicate completeness or multiplicity rather than literally seven. In any case, the Qur’an clearly emphasizes that creation is not monolithic – it speaks of multiple heavens and multiple earths, implying a richly layered cosmos.

Likewise, Qur’an 42:29 is highlighted: “And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the living creatures that He has spread throughout them; and He is able to gather them together when He wills.”. This verse suggests that life is not confined to Earth – there are living beings dispersed throughout the heavens as well. Classical scholars often interpreted those creatures as angels or jinn, but as Shah observes, the wording is open-ended and easily accommodates the possibility of biological life on other planets or worlds. In the 21st-century context, this verse resonates with scientific optimism that extraterrestrial life might exist. The Quran, at the very least, “envisions a cosmos teeming with creations beyond our immediate knowledge.”

Furthermore, Shah finds an intriguing precedent in medieval Islamic thought for the notion of multiple worlds or universes. He recounts how the 12th-century scholar Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī mused on the infinite power of God and the finitude of our cosmos. Rāzī wrote that nothing in reason or scripture precludes God from having created “a thousand thousand worlds beyond this world, each as big and substantial as this one, with its own heavens and earth, sun and moon”. Rāzī even criticized earlier philosophers for assuming our universe was unique, calling their arguments “weak”. This remarkable insight shows an Islamic precedent for embracing an immensely expanded cosmology. While Rāzī did not conceive of a modern multiverse with separate physical space-times, he opened the door conceptually to plural worlds (whether sequential or concurrent), all under God’s dominion. Shah uses this to argue that the notion of multiple universes is not alien to Islamic thought – on the contrary, an omnipotent God’s creativity was understood to be limitless, and human beings have no basis to assert that this cosmos exhausts what God could or did create.

In contrast, Nasser’s treatment of theological sources is relatively brief. Besides Quran 1:2, the other major verse he cites is Quran 3:191rationalreligion.co.uk. He quotes this passage to characterize “those who remember God and ponder over the creation of the heavens and the earth” and who exclaim, “Our Lord, Thou hast not created this in vain!”rationalreligion.co.uk. The implication is that the truly wise (the “men of understanding”) are those who infer purpose when reflecting on the cosmosrationalreligion.co.uk. By quoting this, Nasser aligns the scientific recognition of fine-tuning with Quranic affirmation that creation has meaning and is not an accident. He uses it to bolster his conclusion that accepting design is in harmony with faith and reason, whereas denying it is portrayed as the stubbornness of those who would rather multiply universes than admit a Creatorrationalreligion.co.uk.

Integration of Theology with the Multiverse Concept: Shah’s discussion goes much further in weaving theology with the multiverse idea. After examining science and philosophy, he devotes entire sections to a “Theological Perspective” on God and the multiverse. He argues vigorously that “the multiverse hypothesis and the idea of God are not mutually exclusive”. The common rhetoric of “God vs the multiverse” is a false dichotomy; logically, an all-powerful God could create many universes just as easily as one. Shah notes that some theologians and scientists of faith have already made this point. For example, he quotes Christian astrophysicist Deborah Haarsma, who says even if a multiverse were proven, it would remain “within the realm of God’s creative power and intent” and “would not and could not replace God.”. Such a discovery would simply reveal that God’s creation is structured on a grander scale. Shah then roots this openness in core Islamic theology: the doctrine of Tawḥīd (divine oneness) means that no matter how diverse or numerous the creation, it is all under the one God’s sovereignty. The Qur’an teaches that “Allah is the Creator of all things” (Q. 39:62) and that “to Him belongs the creation and the command” (Q. 7:54). Thus, if science were to discover $10^{500}$ universes, a Muslim could simply respond: “Then God is the Lord and Creator of $10^{500}$ universes.”. The scale of creation may expand, but it does not negate the Creator – it only enlarges our appreciation of His power. Shah draws an analogy: when humanity learned that Earth is not the center of the cosmos but one planet among billions, and that our galaxy is one among trillions, this did not disprove God. Believers merely updated their mental picture: the same God who was Lord of Earth is also Lord of all galaxies. Likewise, if there is a multiverse, “God is Lord of all universes, if indeed there are many.”. In fact, Shah suggests that an infinitely creative God might plausibly create an ensemble of diverse worlds as an expression of divine creativity, rather than being limited to a single cosmos. This notion resonates with the Quranic title “Lord of the worlds” taking on an almost literal truth in a multiverse scenario.

Shah also addresses a potential theological worry: Would finding a natural mechanism for multiple universes “remove” God from the equation? He answers no – it would be akin to any scientific discovery about how God’s will is implemented. For example, we now understand star formation via gravitational collapse, but that doesn’t make God any less the Creator of stars; it just reveals the secondary process by which God’s command realizes itself in nature. By the same token, if inflationary cosmology produces universes, a believer could simply say: “So that’s how God creates many worlds – via physical processes of inflation or quantum tunneling.” The mechanism doesn’t replace the agency. This is a classic theological point (one often made by the BioLogos foundation Shah cites): explaining a phenomenon scientifically does not address the deeper question of why such orderly laws exist or what purpose they serve.

Finally, Shah reflects on divine purpose and human significance in light of a potentially vast cosmos. He underscores that belief in God is a cumulative affair, not resting on one argument alone. Even if (arguendo) the multiverse weakened the fine-tuning argument, there remain many other pointers to God – the origin of consciousness, moral values, the very intelligibility of the universe, the experience of revelation, etc.. And in any case, as he has argued, the multiverse does not truly defeat fine-tuning; it “assumes a lot and explains a little”. Nasser too implied that atheists were grasping at multiverses as a “get-out-of-God-free card”, and Shah explicitly uses that Monopoly metaphor as well. Both view this as philosophically inadequate. Shah goes a step further to say that if tomorrow compelling evidence of a multiverse emerged, it “would not disprove God” – in fact many religious scientists would be excited at beholding an even grander cosmos by God’s design. He quotes physicist Gerald Cleaver, who said that if multiverse theories are true, it would simply reveal “the next step in understanding the beauty, splendor, complexity, and vastness of God’s creation.” Rather than shrinking God, a multiverse would “expand the canvas” on which the Creator’s majesty is displayed. This positive theological outlook on scientific discovery is a hallmark of Shah’s integrative approach.

In contrast, Nasser’s use of theology stays closer to reinforcing the design argument and showing basic compatibility (i.e., multiverse doesn’t contradict Quran). Shah’s use of theology, however, is expository and exploratory: he interprets specific Quranic verses in light of modern cosmology and draws out spiritual lessons. For example, after all the analysis, Shah circles back to the Quran 45:36–37 verse (“To Allah belongs all praise – Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earth, Lord of the worlds… He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise”). He suggests that even if “heavens” in the Quran correspond to what we might call the whole physical multiverse, God’s sovereignty and wisdom would encompass it all. The fine-tuning we observe in our universe could then be seen as a product of that divine wisdom extended over the multiversal framework. Shah even offers a theological re-reading of the fine-tuning argument in a multiverse context: perhaps God’s method was to will a multiverse fertile enough that at least one (or many) universes would develop life. God could design not just a universe, but a universe-generating system, with finely-tuned meta-laws ensuring that life and consciousness arise somewhere (just as a programmer might design a simulation to produce intelligent beings). In this view, life is still intended – it is “part of the divine intent built into the fabric of reality” – even if it blooms in only a subset of many worlds. Shah connects this with the Quranic teaching that God creates meaningfully: “nothing is created in vain” (3:191) and every sign in nature points beyond itself. Fine-tuning, to him, is a modern physical echo of that timeless doctrine of purpose.

By contrast, Nasser’s theological reflection is concentrated in affirming that the Quran already told us about “all the worlds” (so multiple worlds are acceptable), and that ultimately the wisest stance is to see the cosmos as purposeful (not a fluke) – a stance the Quran praises. Shah’s theological reflections encompass that and much more: Quranic commentary, historical scholarship, and a forward-looking vision of how embracing a multiverse concept could enhance religious awe rather than diminish it. The table below summarizes how each article addresses these three axes of content, highlighting Shah’s expansions in scope and depth.

Comparative Table of Key Themes

Aspect	Zia H. Shah MD – “Lord of the Worlds: Quranic Verses, Multiverse, and the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos” (2025)	Umar Nasser – “Cosmic Dice: God, Chance & the Multiverse” (RationalReligion, 2018/2024)
Scientific Insights (Cosmology, Fine-Tuning, Multiverse models)	– Fine-Tuning Detailed: Defines cosmic fine-tuning and provides multiple examples (gravity, cosmological constant, strong force, etc.) showing how physical constants are calibrated for life. Quotes scientists (e.g. Weinberg, Susskind) to underscore the puzzle of a “just-right” universe. – Multiverse Exposition: Explains the multiverse hypothesis thoroughly – describes various models: inflationary bubble universes, quantum many-worlds, string theory’s landscape of universes. Emphasizes that multiple lines of physics motivate the idea. Uses analogies (bubble “foam” cosmos) and discusses the anthropic principle (we observe this universe because we couldn’t exist in the failed ones). – Current Scientific Context: Notes the evidence status – other universes are unobserved and perhaps unobservable, making the multiverse a provocative but unproven inference. Mentions attempts to test multiverse ideas (e.g. cosmic background imprints) with no success so far, framing the scientific debate for the reader.	– Fine-Tuning Introduction: Introduces the concept of fine-tuned constants and initial conditions that permit liferationalreligion.co.uk. Cites consensus among physicists that slight alterations would render the universe lifeless, quoting Steven Weinberg on how surprising it is that the universe allows observersrationalreligion.co.uk. Conveys the improbability of a life-friendly universe, setting up a “mystery” to be explained. – Multiverse Basic Idea: Presents the multiverse as the leading secular explanation for fine-tuningrationalreligion.co.uk. Describes it with accessible metaphors: e.g. many bubble universes in a vast cosmic ocean, each with different lawsrationalreligion.co.uk. Uses a dice analogy – with enough rolls (universes), an otherwise rare result (this fine-tuned world) becomes likelyrationalreligion.co.ukrationalreligion.co.uk. Cites Martin Rees’s view that only a multiverse offers a way to avoid a “providential” (designed) universerationalreligion.co.uk. – Scope of Discussion: Focuses on the big-picture concept rather than multiple models. The article’s science content is streamlined to serve an apologetic narrative: establish fine-tuning as real, then introduce the multiverse as the main alternative to a Designer. Less attention is given to specific cosmological details or variants of multiverse theory (the inflationary scenario is mentioned via Rees, but quantum or string-theoretic multiverses are not deeply explored).
Philosophical Implications (Design argument, contingency, metaphysics)	– Multiverse Needs Fine-Tuning: Argues that positing a multiverse does not eliminate the design inference, because any multiverse model itself relies on finely-tuned parameters or laws. Uses the example of eternal inflation – the mechanism’s settings must be “just right” to produce diverse universes (who tuned those?). Quotes a science source acknowledging the issue: fine-tuning is “pushed a step back” to the origin of the multiverse. – Contingency and Ultimate Cause: Introduces the philosophical question of contingency – even a multiverse would be a contingent reality that could have been otherwise. Invokes the need for a Necessary Being or ultimate explanation: an infinite regress of physical causes is unsatisfying, so a self-existent Creator is still required to ground existence. As Antony Flew observed, however far back one pushes the chain (even to a multiverse), “prior laws” are still needed to explain it. – Metaphysics of Multiverse: Points out that the multiverse hypothesis often transgresses the bounds of empirical science into metaphysics. Notes lack of direct evidence and the “inverse gambler’s fallacy” of assuming countless unseen universes to make our unlikely existence likely. Highlights that accepting an infinite ensemble of unobservable entities is arguably less parsimonious than accepting one unobservable divine cause. Some scientists concede that the multiverse is a way to do “metaphysics without saying God”. – Cosmic Origin: Emphasizes that a multiverse doesn’t evade the cosmological origin problem. Cites the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that even an inflationary multiverse must have a beginning in time. Thus, a “meta-Big-Bang” inception still demands a cause beyond physical reality. An eternal physical existence faces the same question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” – a question that points to a transcendent Creator. – Conclusion on Design: Concludes that fine-tuning plus multiverse still “points compellingly toward…God”, as the multiverse is not a magic bullet to explain order. Even infinite universes would require an explanation for their laws and existence. Suggests that a multiverse, if real, multiplies the creative scope attributable to God rather than eliminating Him. (Alvin Plantinga’s jest is cited: more universes would only confirm God’s creative genius.)	– Multiverse Shifts, Not Solves, Design Problem: Argues that the multiverse idea fails to abolish the inference of design. Emphasizes that an actual infinite number of universes is not tenable, so any finite multiverse won’t cover all possible cosmic settingsrationalreligion.co.uk. Therefore, a life-permitting universe can still be exceedingly special even in a multiverse. – Meta-Design (“Turtles”): Points out that the multiverse itself would need to be well-ordered. Uses a witty metaphor of an infinite stack of turtles (from the anecdote “turtles all the way down”) to illustrate the regress: explaining one fine-tuned universe by a multiverse just raises the question of who designed the multiverse’s law systemrationalreligion.co.uk. “Multiple eggs do not a chicken make,” i.e. even countless universes (eggs) still need an explanation for the cosmic system that produces them. Thus, the design intuition is merely pushed one level up, not eliminated. – Inevitable Conclusion of Design: Asserts that all atheistic responses are “designed to ignore the obvious solution” – that the universe looks designed because it is designedrationalreligion.co.uk. After examining denials of fine-tuning and the multiverse gamble, Nasser concludes that the only logical resolution is an intelligent, purposeful Creator. He bolsters this by quoting Sir Fred Hoyle’s famous conclusion that a “superintellect has monkeyed with physics” to such an extent that design is “almost beyond question.”rationalreligion.co.uk. The article frames the scientific community’s grappling with fine-tuning as going through “stages of grief” – denial is fading, and “bargaining” with multiverse ideas is in play, but ultimately acceptance of design looms on the horizonrationalreligion.co.uk. – Philosophical Depth: Nasser’s piece is geared toward a general audience; it hints at deeper philosophical issues (infinite regress, parsimony) but does not explicitly invoke terms like “necessary being” or formal contingency arguments. The focus is on the intuitive logic that adding more universes doesn’t answer the fundamental “why” – it merely multiplies the need for explanation. His closing argument appeals to common sense and the improbability of a cosmos without a guiding purpose, aligning with the Quranic view that creation is not in vainrationalreligion.co.uk.
Theological & Quranic Reflections (Scriptural interpretation, “Rabb al-‘Alamīn,” divine purpose)	– Quranic Exegesis on “Worlds”: Engages in deep interpretation of Quranic terminology. Notes that the Qur’an repeatedly calls God “Rabb al-‘Alamīn” (Lord of the worlds) – implying multiple realms under His dominion. Cites classical scholars like Ibn Kathīr who explained “worlds” as “everything in existence” apart from God, including various realms of humans, jinn, angels, the hereafter. References a narration of 18,000 worlds to show early Muslim comfort with innumerable creations. – Quranic Hints of Multiple Worlds: Highlights Quran 65:12 (seven heavens and seven earths) and 42:29 (life scattered throughout the heavens) as textual signs that creation is plural and layered. Explains that while traditional exegesis often saw these as layers or known creatures, the verses leave open the possibility of other earth-like worlds or extraterrestrial life. Thus, the Quran “shattered any notion that reality is only what we see,” inviting believers to think big. – Historical Scholars: Presents Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s remarkable speculation that God’s power could manifest in countless other worlds, each with their own heavens and earth. Rāzī’s critique of assuming a unique universe shows an Islamic precedent for multiverse-like thinking. This underscores that Islamic theology never limited God to one universe – His creative scope is infinite in principle. – God’s Majesty in a Multiverse: Argues that acknowledging a multiverse (if it exists) can deepen worship. Every world would glorify God in its own way; Shah quotes Quran 17:44 that “the seven heavens and the earth and all within them exalt Him”. The phrase “Lord of the worlds” thus gains even richer meaning if there are myriad physical worlds – God’s lordship and praise extend across all cosmos. Far from undermining faith, a multiverse would multiply the āyāt (signs) of God’s creative grandeur. – Divine Oneness and Creation’s Diversity: Emphasizes the Islamic tenet that no matter how diverse or numerous creation is, it remains unified under one God (Tawḥīd). Quotes Quran 39:62 and 7:54 that God is creator of all things and all command rests with Him. Therefore, if science discovers a vast multiverse, one simply affirms God as the Creator of that whole multiplicity. Compares this to past expansions of our cosmic outlook (Earth’s demotion from the center, discovery of billions of galaxies) which did not diminish God for believers. – Purpose and Stewardship: Reflections in the epilogue suggest that, in an expansive cosmos, human beings may seem small, but the fine-tuning and rarity of life instead highlight our special role. If countless universes exist and only a few have life, the emergence of conscious beings is a precious, almost sacred occurrence. In Islamic terms, humans are khulafā’ (stewards) in the universe, uniquely able to consciously know and worship the Creator. All creation praises God automatically, but human intelligence gives voice to that praise with understanding. Thus, modern cosmology’s vastness can instill awe and a renewed sense of responsibility in believers, rather than nihilism. – Overall Tone: The theological tone is devotional and integrative. Shah writes as both a scientist and a believer, inviting marvel at how “the Quran’s vision of God’s lordship over ‘all worlds’ provides a rich framework for integrating new scientific ideas into a faith-informed understanding of reality.”thequran.love His commentary maintains reverence, seeing science as a way to appreciate the glory of the Creatorthequran.love.	– Quranic References: Uses Quranic verses sparingly but meaningfully. Cites Qur’an 1:2 (“Lord of all the worlds”) to show that the concept of multiple worlds aligns with scripture and is explicitly affirmed at the very start of the Quranrationalreligion.co.uk. This reinforces that believing in other universes does not conflict with Islamic monotheism; rather, God is already described as Lord of more than one world. – Design and Not in Vain: Quotes Qur’an 3:191, where those who ponder creation conclude, “Our Lord, You have not created this in vain”rationalreligion.co.uk. Uses this to underline the article’s theme: the cosmos has purpose and is not a meaningless accident. Implies that recognizing fine-tuning and design is precisely what the Quran calls the attitude of “men of understanding”rationalreligion.co.uk. In context, it suggests that scientists or thinkers who accept a guided creation (as opposed to attributing everything to chance) are vindicated by scripture. – Multiverse not “un-Islamic”: Nasser briefly addresses whether the multiverse conflicts with Islamic doctrine. By citing “Lord of the worlds,” he indicates Islam inherently allows for unseen worlds, including possibly parallel universes, as part of God’s creationrationalreligion.co.uk. He also mentions in a related RationalReligion piece that even belief in jinn (invisible beings) shows Islam already posits realms we do not directly observerationalreligion.co.uk. Thus, multiple universes per se pose no theological problem: God’s power and lordship would simply extend over all of them. – Divine Purpose and Awe: The article frames the acceptance of design as not just a scientific conclusion but a spiritual insight. By quoting Qur’an 3:191, Nasser aligns the discovery of fine-tuning with the believer’s awe in God’s work. He implies that modern science is finally catching up to what the Quran declared – that the universe is purposeful and “not created in vain.” He even suggests a sort of inevitable “acceptance” (in quasi-religious terms) among scientists, as evidence of design mountsrationalreligion.co.uk. – Tone: The theological tone in “Cosmic Dice” is apologetic and assertive. It aims to show that science and Islam agree on one fundamental point: the universe looks like a deliberate creation. The Quran is brought in to support the argument that chance alone is an insufficient explanation. Nasser’s style is confident that belief in God will triumph as the most rational explanation for cosmological findings, echoing Quranic reassurance that truth stands out clear from error. However, the article stops short of detailed scriptural exegesis or exploring how multiverse ideas might enrich theology – those dimensions are more fully explored by Shah.

Sources:

1. Shah, Zia H. “Lord of the Worlds: Quranic Reflections on the Multiverse.” The Glorious Quran and Science (Sep 18, 2025) – Devotional commentary on Quran 45:36–37 in light of cosmology thequran.love thequran.love.
2. Nasser, Umar. “COSMIC DICE: God, Chance & the Multiverse.” Rational Religion (Oct 19, 2018; updated Apr 25, 2024) – Analysis of fine-tuning arguments vs. multiverse explanations from an Islamic perspective rationalreligion.co.uk rationalreligion.co.uk.
3. Quran 1:2, 45:36–37, 65:12, 42:29, 3:191 – (Translations) Quranic verses invoking “Lord of the worlds,” creation of multiple heavens and earths, and the notion that creation has purpose, not in vain rationalreligion.co.uk.
4. Rees, Martin. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe. (2000) – Astrophysicist’s work discussing fine-tuning and suggesting the multiverse as a way to avoid divine providence rationalreligion.co.uk.
5. Hoyle, Fred. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 20 (1982): 1–35 – Famous quote on a “superintellect monkeying with physics” acknowledging the impression of design in nature rationalreligion.co.uk.
6. Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn. Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb (ca. 12th c.) – Classical Quranic commentary; speculation on infinite void and God’s power to create endless worlds.
7. Ellis, George. “Does the Multiverse Exist?” Scientific American (Aug 2011) – Critique of multiverse as going beyond testable science, raising metaphysical issues.
8. Vilenkin, Alexander. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes. (2006) – Cosmologist who proved any inflating universe must have a beginning; quote: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”.
9. Haarsma, Deborah & Haarsma, Loren. Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. (2011) – Astrophysicist’s view that a multiverse, if real, fits within God’s creative power and does not eliminate the need for God.
10. Cleaver, Gerald. Quoted in The Daily Princetonian (Mar 29, 2018) – Physicist expressing that verifying multiverse theories would reveal even greater complexity and splendor in God’s creation.