Epigraph

سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ 

We will show them, soon, Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is a witness over all things? (Al Quran 41:53)

Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Audio teaser:

Abstract

This report presents a comprehensive, expert-level analysis of Surah Fussilat, Verse 53 (Quran 41:53), examining its prophetic claim that divine signs will be manifested in “the horizons” (al-Afaq) and “within themselves” (fi anfusihim). By synthesizing advanced cosmological data, quantum mechanics, neuroscientific case studies, and psychological theories, this document argues that the “Book of Nature” and the “Book of Scripture” are converging toward a singular truth: the necessity of a Transcendent Creator and Sustainer. Drawing on the work of Dr. Zia H. Shah, alongside eminent thinkers such as Sir Roger Penrose, John Polkinghorne, Alvin Plantinga, and Paul Vitz, the report demonstrates how metaphysical naturalism fails to account for the fine-tuning of the cosmos, the “hard problem” of consciousness, and the innate structure of human psychology. It posits that these phenomena are not anomalies but deliberate “signs” (Ayat) establishing the ultimate truth (Al-Haqq) of the Quranic worldview.

---

1. Introduction: The Prophecy of the Two Books

1.1 Exegesis and the Scope of Divine Promise

The Quranic discourse is anchored in a profound epistemological claim found in Chapter 41, Verse 53:

“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses everything?” ¹

This verse, known as the “Verse of Manifestation,” serves as a meta-commentary on the relationship between revelation and reality. The Arabic term used for “signs” is Ayat (plural of Ayah). In Quranic theology, this term is applied bi-directionally: it refers to the revealed verses of the scripture and simultaneously to the phenomena of the natural world—the movement of celestial bodies, the biological complexity of life, and the psychological depth of the human soul.³ This dual usage establishes a fundamental unity of truth: the Author of the Scripture is the Architect of the Universe. Consequently, there can be no genuine contradiction between the “Word of God” (Revelation) and the “Work of God” (Nature); rather, they act as mutual verifiers.⁴

Classical exegetes, such as the Andalusian mystic Ibn ‘Arabi, interpreted al-Afaq (the horizons) as the macrocosm—the external universe comprising the heavens and the earth—and fi anfusihim (within themselves) as the microcosm—the internal reality of human biology, consciousness, and spirituality.⁵ However, the use of the future tense verb Sanurihim (“We will show them”) indicates a progressive revelation of these signs throughout history. This implies that the full depth of the verse was not accessible to the 7th-century audience but was intended to unfold alongside the expansion of human knowledge.⁶

1.2 The Failure of Scientific Atheism

For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the trajectory of science appeared to diverge from theology. The rise of scientific atheism, grounded in Newtonian determinism and Darwinian materialism, posited a universe that was eternal, self-existing, and “closed”—a clockwork mechanism requiring no external Sustainer.⁷ Metaphysical naturalism asserted that “nature is all there is,” reducing consciousness to neural firing and the cosmos to a brute fact.

However, the 21st century has witnessed a dramatic reversal of this trend. Dr. Zia H. Shah, Chief Editor of The Muslim Times, argues that modern discoveries have dismantled the foundations of materialism. The transition from an eternal universe to the Big Bang, the discovery of cosmic fine-tuning, the collapse of strict determinism in quantum mechanics, and the persistent mystery of consciousness have reopened the door to theistic explanation.⁸ The “Truth” (Al-Haqq) promised in 41:53 is the realization that the universe is intelligibly designed and sustained by a Conscious Agent.

This report systematically explores these two domains—the Horizons and the Selves—to demonstrate how current scientific facts serve as the fulfillment of this Quranic prophecy.

---

2. Signs in the Horizons (Al-Afaq): The Testimony of Cosmology and Physics

The “Horizons” refer to the external physical reality, ranging from the subatomic realm to the cosmic microwave background. Modern cosmology provides a litany of “signs” that point away from chance and toward teleology (purpose).

2.1 The Origin: From Eternalism to Ex Nihilo

The first major vindication of the Quranic worldview in the “horizons” was the collapse of the Steady State theory. Materialist philosophy historically favored an eternal universe to avoid the necessity of a Creator. However, the discovery of the expanding universe by Edwin Hubble, and the subsequent confirmation of the Big Bang, aligned modern science with the Quranic narrative of creation ex nihilo and expansion.

The Quran states in Surah Adh-Dhariyat (51:47): “And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.”.⁸ The Arabic participle musi’un (expanding) accurately describes the dynamic nature of the cosmos discovered only in the 20th century. This transition from a static to a dynamic, originated universe establishes the necessity of a First Cause, dismantling the atheist reliance on an infinite temporal regression.⁷

2.2 The Anthropic Principle and Cosmic Fine-Tuning

Perhaps the most compelling “sign in the horizons” is the Fine-Tuning of the Universe, often referred to as the Goldilocks Enigma. This principle observes that the fundamental laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe fall within an infinitesimally narrow range required for the emergence of life.¹⁰

2.2.1 The Precision of Fundamental Constants

Physicists have identified a set of approximately 26 fundamental constants that, if altered even slightly, would render the universe uninhabitable. These are not determined by the laws of physics themselves but are “arbitrary” values that must be inputted into the equations.

Table 1: The Cosmic Calibration of Fundamental Constants

Constant	Description	Consequence of Deviation	Probability of Chance
Gravitational Constant (G)	Determines the strength of gravity.	If stronger by $10^{-40}$: Stars burn out in mere years (no time for life). If weaker by $10^{-40}$: Matter never coalesces into stars/galaxies.12	1 in $10^{40}$
Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda$)	Energy density of empty space (Dark Energy).	Must be tuned to 120 decimal places. If slightly larger, the universe expands too fast for galaxies to form. If smaller, it recollapses immediately.10	1 in $10^{120}$
Strong Nuclear Force	Binds protons/neutrons in the nucleus.	If 2% stronger: All hydrogen fuses to helium instantly (no water, no stars). If 5% weaker: No heavy elements (carbon, oxygen) form.12	High Sensitivity
Expansion Rate of Universe	The speed of cosmic inflation after Big Bang.	Tuned to 1 part in $10^{60}$. Deviation leads to either runaway dispersion or immediate gravitational collapse.12	1 in $10^{60}$

Dr. Zia H. Shah and physicist Paul Davies argue that this precision cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. Davies, a physicist, remarks that the universe looks as though it was “fixed up” or designed by a “pure mathematician”.¹⁵ This aligns with the Quranic assertion in Surah Al-Qamar (54:49): “Indeed, all things We created with predestination (Qadar/Measure).”.¹⁰ The fine-tuning is the physical manifestation of this divine Qadar.

2.2.2 The Carbon Resonance: A Specific Sign

Sir John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist and Anglican priest, highlights the “Carbon Resonance” as a distinct theological sign. Carbon is the backbone of life, but it does not exist in the early universe; it must be cooked inside stars via the Triple-Alpha process (fusion of three helium nuclei). This reaction is statistically improbable because the energies do not naturally align.

However, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle discovered that the carbon nucleus possesses a specific resonance (energy level) at exactly 7.65 MeV. This precise value bridges the energy gap, acting as a “quantum ladder” that allows helium to fuse into carbon. If this resonance were slightly lower or higher, the universe would be devoid of carbon, and thus devoid of life. Polkinghorne argues that this “spot-on perfect” resonance conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that a Purposeful Mind intended for life to exist.⁷

2.3 The Entropy Problem: Penrose’s Number

The “Signs in the Horizons” also encompass the thermodynamic order of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) tends to increase. For the universe to possess the complex order we see today (galaxies, stars, DNA), it must have begun in a state of exquisitely low entropy.

Sir Roger Penrose, a Nobel laureate, calculated the probability of the Big Bang occurring purely by chance with such low entropy. He determined the required precision to be 1 part in:

$$10^{10^{123}}$$

This number, known as the Penrose Number, is so vast that it cannot be written in decimal notation within the observable universe; if every proton in the universe were a zero, there would still not be enough particles to write the number.¹⁸ Penrose concludes that this indicates a “singular” constraint on the initial conditions of the universe, pointing to a deliberate selection of the initial state rather than a random chaotic explosion.²⁰

Dr. Zia H. Shah interprets this as a mathematical verification of the Creator’s intent. The probability of a “random” universe producing this order is effectively zero. Therefore, the existence of the universe is an empirical impossibility under naturalism, becoming possible only through the agency of a Chooser (Al-Mukhtār).⁷

2.4 The Multiverse Hypothesis vs. Divine Design

Faced with the overwhelming evidence of fine-tuning, metaphysical naturalism has retreated to the Multiverse Hypothesis—the idea that there are infinite universes with varying constants, and we simply exist in the one that permits life (the Anthropic Selection Effect).¹⁴

However, theist philosophers like Richard Swinburne and John Polkinghorne reject this on rational grounds:

1. Violation of Ockham’s Razor: The principle of “Intellectual Economy” suggests we should prefer the simplest explanation. Postulating a Trillion Trillion unobservable universes to explain the features of one is “prodigal” and scientifically reckless. Postulating One God is a simpler, more powerful explanation.¹⁴
2. The Generator Problem: As Paul Davies notes, a “multiverse generator” would itself require physical laws and mechanisms to churn out universes. Who designed the generator? The multiverse does not solve the fine-tuning problem; it merely pushes it up a level.¹¹
3. The Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy: The existence of other losing players (universes) does not explain why this specific roll of the dice was a winner.

The report concludes that the Multiverse is a “leap of faith” by atheists to avoid the clear implications of the data: that the Horizons are designed.

---

3. The Nature of Reality: Quantum Mechanics and the Sustainer

The commentary now turns to the mechanism of reality itself. How does God interact with the “Horizons”?

3.1 From Clockwork to Uncertainty

Newtonian physics depicted a deterministic universe where the future was entirely locked by the past. This left no room for active Divine intervention or free will. However, the quantum revolution shattered this view. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction mean that the future is open, not closed.⁷

3.2 Occasionalism and Quantum Witnesses

Dr. Zia H. Shah draws a profound parallel between the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (where particles exist as probabilities until observed) and the Islamic theological concept of Occasionalism (Ash’arism), famously championed by Al-Ghazali.

Occasionalism posits that created things do not have independent causal power; rather, God recreates the universe at every instant (“atoms” of time). The “laws of nature” are simply the habits of God’s will. Shah argues that quantum mechanics provides the physical substrate for this theology. The “collapse of the wavefunction” requires an Observer. If the universe existed before human observers, who collapsed the wavefunction? The answer is the Ultimate Observer, God.⁷

This framework elucidates the Quranic attribute Al-Qayyum (The Self-Subsisting Sustainer) and Al-Muqit (The Nourisher). As stated in Quran 35:41: “God keeps the heavens and earth from vanishing; if they did vanish, no one else could stop them.”.¹⁴ In this view, the “Signs in the Horizons” are not static artifacts of a past creation but dynamic evidence of God’s continuous, sustaining activity at the quantum level.

---

4. Signs Within Themselves (Fi Anfusihim): The Enigma of Consciousness

The second domain of the Quranic prophecy lies “within themselves.” The nature of human consciousness remains the greatest stumbling block for materialist philosophy, serving as a powerful sign of a non-physical reality.

4.1 The Hard Problem of Consciousness

Philosopher David Chalmers famously distinguished between the “Easy Problems” of consciousness (mapping neural correlates, reaction times) and the “Hard Problem”: Why does the processing of information give rise to a subjective inner experience (qualia)? Why does a specific wavelength of light feel like “redness”?.¹⁴

Materialism asserts that the brain produces the mind, just as the liver produces bile. However, Dr. Zia H. Shah and others argue that this is a category error. Matter has properties of mass, charge, and spin. It does not have properties of “feeling” or “aboutness” (intentionality). The emergence of subjective experience from dead matter is not an explanation; it is a miracle disguised as science.⁹

Zia Shah references Quran 17:85: “They ask you concerning the Spirit (Ruh). Say: The Spirit is of the command of my Lord, and you have not been given of knowledge except a little.” This verse anticipates the limit of material science: it can map the brain (Khalq – creation), but it cannot fully grasp the consciousness (Amr – command) which belongs to a different order of reality.¹⁴

4.2 Evidence for Dualism: The Neuroscientific Case

Contrary to the popular belief that neuroscience proves materialism, several of the field’s founders were staunch Dualists who believed the mind is distinct from the brain.

4.2.1 Wilder Penfield: The Surgeon of the Soul

Wilder Penfield, the pioneer of epilepsy surgery, stimulated the exposed brains of conscious patients with electrodes. He found he could trigger memories, movements, and sensations. However, he noted a distinct “Sign”:

• The Un-Simulatable Will: Penfield could make a patient’s hand move, but the patient would always say, “I didn’t do that; you did.” He could never stimulate the will to move or the belief in a decision.
• The Third-Person Witness: The patient always retained a conscious “I” that stood apart from the stimulated mechanism, observing it. Penfield concluded that the mind has an energy source distinct from neuronal potentials, essentially arguing for the existence of the soul based on clinical data.²³

4.2.2 Sir John Eccles: The Interactionist

Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles proposed “Interactionist Dualism.” He argued that the mind (composed of “psychons”) interacts with the brain (composed of “dendrons”) at the synaptic level, possibly through quantum tunneling effects. Eccles used the analogy of the Piano and the Pianist:

• The Brain is the Piano (instrument).
• The Mind is the Pianist (agent).
• If the piano is broken (brain damage), the music (behavior) is distorted, but the pianist remains intact. This explains why brain damage affects function without necessarily destroying the core “self” or soul.²⁵

4.2.3 Michael Egnor: Intellectual Immateriality

Dr. Michael Egnor, a contemporary neurosurgeon, argues that while sensory and motor functions are localized, intellectual functions (abstract thought) are not. He cites cases of patients with severe hydrocephalus (where 90% of the brain is replaced by fluid) who nevertheless possess normal or high IQs. Egnor argues this supports the Aristotelian/Thomistic view (and Islamic view) that the rational soul is not entirely dependent on the physical organ.²⁷

4.3 The Argument from Consciousness

Philosophers Richard Swinburne and J.P. Moreland utilize these insights to formulate the Argument from Consciousness for God’s existence:

1. Premise 1: Mental events (thoughts, feelings) are non-physical.
2. Premise 2: Physical laws describe physical-to-physical causality (motion, energy transfer). They do not describe physical-to-mental causality.
3. Premise 3: The correlation between the brain and the mind is regular and structured.
4. Inference: A scientific explanation for this correlation is impossible (The Hard Problem).
5. Conclusion: The best explanation is a Personal Explanation: A Supreme Agent (God) designed the psychophysical laws to couple the soul to the body, allowing human agency to exist.²⁹

Swinburne argues it is “crazy” to think that the evolution of the brain accidentally produced a subjective inner life that has no survival value in a purely materialist sense. Consciousness is a “sign” of our likeness to the Creator.²¹

---

5. The Psychology of the Soul: Fitrah, Meaning, and Atheism

The “Signs Within Themselves” extend beyond neurology into the psychological architecture of belief. The report demonstrates that the human psyche is “hardwired” for God, and that atheism is often a psychological deviation rather than an intellectual conclusion.

5.1 Fitrah and the Sensus Divinitatis

The Quran posits that humans possess a Fitrah—an innate, primordial disposition to acknowledge the Divine (Quran 30:30).³¹ This is not learned knowledge but a structural component of the human soul.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga formalizes this as the Sensus Divinitatis (Sense of Divinity). Just as we have eyes to sense light and ears to sense sound, Plantinga argues we have a cognitive faculty designed to sense God. When this faculty functions properly in a natural environment (e.g., looking at a starry sky or a mountain range), it spontaneously produces the belief “God created this.”

• Implication: Belief in God is “properly basic”—it is rational without requiring a syllogistic argument. The widespread existence of religious belief across all cultures and history is evidence of this faculty.³²
• Malfunction: Plantinga argues that sin or cognitive damage can “cloud” this sense, leading to atheism, much like cataracts cloud vision.³⁴

5.2 The Psychology of Atheism: The “Defective Father”

Sigmund Freud famously dismissed religion as an “illusion” and a projection of the childhood need for a protective father figure. However, psychologist Paul Vitz turns this argument on its head in his “Psychology of Atheism” theory.

Vitz investigated the biographies of the most prominent atheists of the modern era (Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Voltaire) and found a specific “Sign”: the Defective Father Syndrome.

• The Data:
  • Freud: His father was weak, passive, and unable to support the family. Freud despised him.
  • Nietzsche: His father died when he was 4; he hated the “Christian” God associated with his father.
  • Sartre: His father died in his infancy.
  • Voltaire: He rejected his father’s name and assumed a pseudonym; he had a terrible relationship with him.
• The Theory: Vitz argues that the capacity to trust the “Heavenly Father” is psychologically linked to the relationship with the earthly father. Severe trauma, absence, or disappointment with the earthly father leads to a rejection of God. Atheism is not a rational conclusion but an “Oedipal wish-fulfillment”—the desire to kill the father to possess absolute autonomy.³⁵

This analysis suggests that the “Sign within the Self” is that our psychological health is linked to the acceptance of Divine Authority, and rejection often stems from emotional pathology.

5.3 The Argument from Desire

C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft articulate the Argument from Desire, which aligns with the Quranic concept that “Only in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest” (Quran 13:28).

• Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire corresponds to a real object that can satisfy it (Hunger -> Food; Thirst -> Water; Libido -> Sex).
• Premise 2: Humans possess an innate, universal desire for “Infinite Happiness,” “Ultimate Meaning,” and “Perfect Justice” (Sehnsucht).
• Premise 3: Nothing in the physical world (money, sex, power, fame) satisfies this desire. We always want more.
• Conclusion: Therefore, the object of this desire must exist in a non-physical reality (God/Afterlife). If we find in ourselves a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.³⁷

5.4 The Will to Meaning (Viktor Frankl)

Psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, observed that humans are driven not by the “Will to Pleasure” (Freud) or “Will to Power” (Adler), but the Will to Meaning. In the concentration camps, those who lost a sense of transcendent meaning died quickly. Those who retained a belief in a purpose (often religious) survived.

• The Sign: This psychological necessity for meaning suggests that the universe is teleological (purpose-driven). If the universe were truly a random accident, the human brain should not have evolved a fatal dependency on “meaning.” The fact that we need meaning to survive is a sign that Meaning is a fundamental constituent of reality.⁴⁰

5.5 The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Alvin Plantinga provides a devastating critique of naturalism using evolutionary logic, known as the EAAN.

1. Premise: Evolution selects for behaviors that aid survival (feeding, fleeing, fighting, reproducing), not for the truth of abstract beliefs.
2. Scenario: A prehistoric human might run from a tiger because he believes the tiger is a cuddly illusion that he wants to race. The behavior (running) saves him, but the belief is false. Evolution rewards the running, not the truth.
3. Conflict: If Naturalism and Evolution (N&E) are both true, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable for producing true metaphysical beliefs is low. Our brains are survival engines, not truth engines.
4. Defeater: Therefore, the naturalist has a “defeater” for the belief that his own cognitive faculties are reliable. If he cannot trust his brain, he cannot trust the thought “Naturalism is true.”
5. Conclusion: Naturalism is self-refuting. Theism, however, posits that God designed our minds to know the Truth, thus rescuing science and rationality from the grip of skepticism.⁴²

---

6. Epistemology: Amad vs. Aawurd — The Mechanism of Revelation

Dr. Zia H. Shah introduces a sophisticated epistemological framework to explain how the signs in the “Horizons” are communicated to the “Self” through revelation.

6.1 The Two Modes of Knowledge

• Aawurd (Labor/Acquisition): This is knowledge gained through the “bottom-up” process of sensory perception, logic, and the scientific method. It is the domain of the brain as a computer.¹⁴
• Amad (Arrival/Inspiration): This is knowledge that “descends” upon the mind fully formed, without prior conscious effort. It is the “top-down” process of revelation. It implies the mind is an “antenna” receiving a signal from the Al-Aleem (The All-Knowing).¹⁴

6.2 True Dreams as Empirical Signs

Materialism claims the brain is a closed system. However, the phenomenon of True Dreams in the history of science falsifies this closure. These are instances where verifiable information about the “Horizons” was revealed to the “Self” through Amad.

• Dmitri Mendeleev: He struggled for years to organize the elements. The solution—the Periodic Table—appeared to him in a dream “where all elements fell into place as required.” He woke up and wrote it down.¹⁴
• Friedrich August Kekulé: He discovered the ring structure of benzene (a fundamental breakthrough in chemistry) after dreaming of a snake eating its own tail (the Ouroboros).¹⁴
• Srinivasa Ramanujan: The Indian mathematical genius produced formulas (mock theta functions) that are used today to understand black hole entropy. He claimed these formulas were given to him in dreams by the goddess Namagiri. He could not prove them, but they were true. This is a classic example of Amad—information exceeding the cognitive labor of the recipient.¹⁴
• Otto Loewi: The Nobel Prize-winning discovery of chemical neurotransmission came to him in a dream. He designed the experiment in his sleep.¹⁴

These examples demonstrate that the “Self” is permeable to the “Horizons” via a non-physical connection, verifying the Quranic model of inspiration (Wahi) and proving that consciousness is not limited to the skull.

---

7. Synthesis: The Verification of the Author

The convergence of these diverse fields establishes a unified testimony. Quran 41:53 predicted that the “Truth” would become clear through external and internal signs.

• From Physics: We see a universe that began (Big Bang) and is fine-tuned for life ($10^{40}$, $10^{123}$), pointing to a Creator.
• From Neuroscience: We see a mind that interacts with the brain but is not reducible to it (Penfield, Eccles), pointing to a Soul.
• From Psychology: We see a Deep Structure (Fitrah) that seeks God and meaning, pointing to a Sustainer.
• From Epistemology: We see the reception of knowledge (Amad) that transcends material causation, pointing to a Revealer.

Dr. Zia H. Shah concludes that the Quranic description of natural phenomena acts as the “authenticator” of its theological claims. Because the Quran accurately referred to the expansion of the universe (51:47), the embryonic development stages (23:14), and the protective nature of the atmosphere (21:32) centuries before these were known, its claims regarding the “Self”—that we are responsible agents created for an Afterlife—carry the weight of verified truth.³

Metaphysical naturalism is left with a universe of impossible coincidences (Fine-Tuning) and inexplicable illusions (Consciousness). The Quranic worldview offers a coherent, unified theory of reality where the “Horizons” and the “Self” reflect the same Divine Light.

---

Conclusion

The commentary on Quran 41:53 reveals that the “Signs” promised by God are not vague metaphors but precise, empirical realities discovered by modern science. The physics of the cosmos and the psychology of the soul stand as two pillars witnessing to the same truth: that we inhabit a created, purposeful, and sustained universe.

The “Horizons” tell us of God’s Power and Wisdom (Al-Qadir, Al-Hakim). The “Selves” tell us of His Mercy and Closeness (Ar-Rahman, Al-Qarib). The convergence of these testimonies in the 21st century is the fulfillment of the prophecy: “Until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.”

The question posing the verse—“Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses everything?”—is rhetorical. The evidence suggests that for the open mind, armed with the insights of cosmology and the introspection of psychology, it is indeed enough.

---

Table 2: The Failure of Naturalism vs. Theistic Explanation

Phenomenon	Naturalist Explanation	Critique of Naturalism	Theistic/Quranic Explanation
Origin of Universe	Multiverse / Eternal Inflation	Violates Ockham’s Razor; lacks empirical proof.	Creation Ex Nihilo (Divine Command “Be”).
Fine-Tuning ($10^{123}$)	Chance / Anthropic Selection	Probability is effectively zero; Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy.	Al-Qadar (Divine Measure/Precision).
Consciousness	Emergent Property / Illusion	The Hard Problem; distinct from physical properties.	Ruh (Spirit from the Command of God).
Human Reason	Evolutionary Survival Tool	EAAN: If true, reason is unreliable (Self-defeating).	Fitrah: Designed to know the Truth.
Atheism	Rational Skepticism	Vitz’s Theory: Often rooted in father-complex/trauma.	Ghaflah: Negligence/Suppression of Fitrah.
Scientific Insight	Random Neural Firing	Cannot explain “True Dreams” (Ramanujan, Mendeleev).	Amad: Inspiration/Revelation from Al-Aleem.

Read further in Microsoft Word file: