God, Science, and Quranic Insights

Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Audio summary:

Abstract

This research report provides an exhaustive investigation into the ontological and teleological frameworks concerning the existence of God, primarily structured through a dialectical engagement between contemporary Western philosophy and the interdisciplinary synthesis of Dr. Zia H. Shah, MD. The analysis commences with a granular summary of the “Mystery of Existence” discourse, quoting prominent thinkers such as John Leslie, Quentin Smith, William Lane Craig, and Peter van Inwagen, to establish the boundaries of current metaphysical inquiry regarding the origin and contingency of the cosmos. This foundation is then embellished and expanded through the theological and scientific corpus of Dr. Zia H. Shah, whose work reconstructs the “Cumulative Case for God” by integrating the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the “Proof of the Truthful” by Avicenna, and the extreme fine-tuning of physical constants, such as the cosmological constant. The report investigates the “Ontological,” “Conscious,” and “Epistemological” deficits of atheistic naturalism, utilizing Dr. Shah’s “Magical Jacket” metaphor to critique the explanatory limits of the multiverse. Furthermore, the analysis explores the “Two Books” paradigm, which posits a fundamental harmony between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, evidenced by the “Argument from Absence” in Quranic hydrology and the convergence of quantum mechanics with classical occasionalism. By synthesizing 7th-century revelation with 21st-century astrophysics—including the dynamics of Sagittarius A* and the extra-dimensional infrastructure of divine omniscience—this report argues that the synergy of these diverse data points forms a robust defeater for atheism, pointing toward a Necessary Being who is both the “Lord of the Worlds” and the source of all intelligibility.

The Mystery of Existence: A Dialectical Summary of Philosophical Inquiries

The fundamental inquiry into why there is “something rather than nothing” constitutes the bedrock of metaphysical thought. In the “Mystery of Existence” discourse, a spectrum of experts provides conflicting but illuminating perspectives on the limits of naturalism and the necessity of a transcendent cause.

The Problem of Brute Facts and Logical Necessity

The debate often centers on whether the universe requires an external explanation or if it can be accepted as a “brute fact.” Quentin Smith, a proponent of atheistic naturalism, maintains that the search for a cause is a category error. He asserts that the universe’s existence is a “brute fact,” stating that “the universe just is,” and suggests that the laws of physics themselves provide the only ground for reality. This perspective represents the “Ontological Deficit” identified by critics, as it essentially halts rational inquiry at the boundary of cosmic origins.

Conversely, William Lane Craig revitalizes the medieval Kalam Cosmological Argument to challenge this brute-fact assertion. Craig argues from the premise of causality, stating, “Something cannot come from nothing. If the universe began to exist, it requires a transcendent cause”. For Craig, the scientific evidence for the Big Bang provides the empirical verification of a finite past, necessitating a timeless and immaterial cause.

Peter van Inwagen, a philosopher specializing in metaphysics, explores the probabilistic improbability of “nothingness.” He observes that “the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ is the most fundamental because nothingness would be simpler.” His reflection suggests that the sheer complexity and order of the cosmos are anomalies that demand a deeper structural explanation than mere chance.

The Anthropic Principle and the Multiverse

The teleological dimension of the mystery is addressed by John Leslie, who focuses on the “particularity” of the universe. Leslie argues that the universe appears to be a “very particular thing” and that “if you have an infinite number of universes, one of them must be life-permitting.” His position acknowledges the appearance of design but attempts to explain it through the framework of a multiverse, an ensemble of universes with varying physical constants.

The dialogue between these thinkers establishes a crucial tension: if the universe is contingent and began to exist, it requires a cause; if it is fine-tuned, it requires a designer or an infinite ensemble of attempts. This tension serves as the catalyst for Dr. Zia H. Shah’s cumulative case, which seeks to unify these disparate arguments into a single, coherent narrative of Divine intent.

Table 1: Comparative Philosophical Positions on Cosmic Origins

Thinker	Core Argument	Metaphysical Conclusion
Quentin Smith	Brute Fact	Naturalism; The universe is its own ultimate explanation.
William Lane Craig	Kalam Argument	Theism; A personal Creator initiated the Big Bang.
John Leslie	Anthropic Particularity	Multiverse; Fine-tuning is a product of probabilistic ensembles.
Peter van Inwagen	Complexity vs. Void	Metaphysical Necessity; Existence is more “likely” than nothingness.
Zia H. Shah MD	Cumulative Synergy	Monotheism; All signs converge on a Necessary Being.

The Cumulative Case for God: The Synthesis of Zia H. Shah MD

Dr. Zia H. Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times, posits that the most effective response to modern atheism is not a single “silver bullet” argument, but a “cumulative case” that leverages the interconnected explanatory power of multiple disciplines. This approach acknowledges that while individual arguments—cosmological, teleological, moral, or existential—may face localized critiques, their collective weight creates an “inference to the best explanation”.

The Synergy of Interdisciplinary Proofs

Shah argues that theism explains the diverse phenomena of the universe with a single entity (God), whereas atheism requires disjointed and often contradictory explanations, such as “brute existence” for the cosmos, “evolutionary accidents” for ethics, and “multiverse speculation” for fine-tuning. This violation of philosophical parsimony (Occam’s Razor) makes the theistic model more rationally robust.

Shah’s framework identifies three primary “deficits” in the atheistic worldview:

1. The Ontological Deficit: The inability to explain why existence emerged from non-existence without resorting to intellectual surrender.
2. The Conscious Deficit: The failure to account for subjective experience (qualia) through material processes.
3. The Epistemological Deficit: The contradiction of using “accidental” evolutionary brains to argue for “necessary” mathematical truths.

By addressing these deficits, Shah constructs a worldview where the “Eye of Reason” (science) and the “Eye of Revelation” (scripture) function together to perceive the Divine.

The Cosmological Pillar: Kalam and the Proof of the Truthful

The first pillar of Shah’s cumulative case is the cosmological argument, which seeks to establish God as the “Necessary Existent” behind a contingent universe.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Modern Physics

Dr. Shah draws heavily on the work of medieval Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali and contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig to present the Kalam argument. The argument is built upon the premise that “whatever begins to exist has a cause”. Shah integrates this with the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem, which provides a mathematical proof that any universe that has been on average expanding must have a finite past.

This scientific realization leads to a profound theological conclusion. As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin states, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”. Shah emphasizes that this cause must be “timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal”. He argues that an impersonal cause would lead to an effect as eternal as itself; only a personal agent could voluntarily choose to initiate a temporal effect in a specific moment of “divine volition”.

Avicenna’s “Proof of the Truthful”

To deepen the cosmological case, Shah cites Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) and his “Proof of the Truthful” (Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn). Avicenna’s distinction between “essence” (what a thing is) and “existence” (that a thing is) is central to this analysis. For contingent beings, essence and existence are separate; their very nature does not guarantee their being.

Shah explains Avicenna’s categories of being:

1. Necessary by Itself: A being whose essence is existence (God).
2. Impossible by Itself: A being that is inherently contradictory (e.g., a square circle).
3. Possible by Itself: A being that can either exist or not exist (the universe).

Because the universe is “Possible by Itself,” it requires a “Necessary Existent” to actualize its existence. This Necessary Existent must be singular, simple (without parts), and immutable. Shah identifies this Necessary Existent with the God described in the Quran (2:117): “He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees something, He says only, ‘Be,’ and it is”.

The Teleological Pillar: The Architecture of Fine-Tuning

The second pillar of the case for God is the “teleological argument,” which observes the intricate order and life-permitting conditions of the universe. Dr. Shah argues that the “fine-tuning” of the cosmos is so extreme that it defies any explanation by natural coincidence.

The Cosmological Constant Problem

One of the most striking examples of fine-tuning discussed by Shah is the cosmological constant ($\Lambda$), which represents the energy density of empty space. Physicists acknowledge that theoretical calculations of vacuum energy deviate from the observed value of $\Lambda$ by an astonishing 120 orders of magnitude—a discrepancy dubbed “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics”.

Shah notes that for life to exist, $\Lambda$ had to be set to an exceedingly narrow range, fine-tuned to within “one part in $10^{120}$”. If the value were even slightly larger, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that matter could never clump into stars and galaxies; if it were slightly smaller, the universe would have collapsed before life could arise. This specificity, Shah argues, suggests a “purposeful Mind who set the dial of dark energy precisely”.

General Constants and Life-Support Systems

Beyond the cosmological constant, Shah highlights several other “just right” properties of our universe:

• Gravity (G): If gravity were significantly stronger, stars would burn out too quickly for life to evolve; if weaker, stars would never ignite.
• Strong Nuclear Force: This force binds atomic nuclei. If it were slightly stronger, all hydrogen would have fused into helium in the early universe, leaving no hydrogen for water or long-lived stars like the Sun.
• Initial Expansion Rate: One second after the Big Bang, the expansion rate and density needed to balance to within “one part in $10^{15}$” (one in a quadrillion) to allow galaxy formation.

Shah quotes Nobel laureate Richard Feynman regarding the fine-structure constant (approximately 1/137): “You might say the hand of God wrote that number and we don’t know how He pushed His pencil”. This sentiment underscores that fine-tuning is not a speculative theological claim but an empirical observation that challenges the foundations of secular materialism.

Table 2: Critical Fine-Tuned Constants and Their Tolerance

Physical Constant	Degree of Precision Required	Consequence of Deviation
Cosmological Constant ($\Lambda$)	1 part in $10^{120}$	Rapid expansion (no galaxies) or rapid collapse.
Initial Expansion Rate	1 part in $10^{15}$	Premature recollapse or diffuse gas without stars.
Strong Nuclear Force	~1-5%	Absence of hydrogen or heavier life-essential elements.
Gravitational Constant (G)	1 part in $10^{36}$ (relative to electromagnetism)	Stars either fail to form or live too short for evolution.
Fine Structure Constant	Approximately 1/137	Chaos in the behavior of electrons and chemical bonding.

Critiquing the Atheist Counter-Narrative: The Magical Jacket

To address the common atheistic appeal to the multiverse as a way to “explain away” fine-tuning, Dr. Shah employs the powerful metaphor of the “Magical Jacket”.

The Illusion of Infinite Probabilities

Shah asks the reader to imagine walking into a store and finding a jacket that fits their measurements exactly, containing their photo in the pocket, a diary of their private thoughts, and the keys to their home. When the shopper expresses amazement, the shopkeeper claims there was no designer; rather, there are simply “infinite jackets in the back room with every possible combination,” and the shopper just “happened” to find the one that fits.

Shah argues that no rational person would accept this. The “specificity of the jacket implies design”. He posits that our universe contains a similar “passport” of existence (carbon, water) and a “diary” of consciousness that requires a Designer. Proposing trillions of unobservable universes to explain the precision of this one is, in Shah’s view, a violation of Occam’s Razor and represents a desperate “Atheism of the Gaps”.

The Multiverse and the Lord of the Worlds

Interestingly, Dr. Shah does not reject the multiverse as a physical possibility; instead, he argues that even if a multiverse exists, it does not negate God—it magnifies Him.

Quranic Plurality and Scientific Speculation

Shah identifies the Quranic opening phrase, al-hamdu lillāhi rabb al-‘ālamīn (“All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds”), as a theological anchor for the multiverse. He argues that the plural “worlds” ( ‘ālamīn) inherently implies multiple spheres of creation. Shah cites the 12th-century scholar Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, who criticized philosophers claiming our universe was unique, asserting that God has the “power to create a thousand thousand worlds beyond this world”.

In Shah’s perspective, an ensemble of universes would itself require an explanation for its origin and laws. Rather than undermining divine design, a multiverse “magnifies the creative scope attributable to God,” portraying Him as the sovereign over “countless worlds, known and unknown”. Thus, the multiverse is not a rival to the Creator but a manifestation of His “limitless creative power”.

The Conscious Deficit: Consciousness as an Inner Miracle

The third pillar of Shah’s case is the “Argument from Consciousness,” which he frames as a “sign within ourselves”. He draws on Quran 41:53: “We shall show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until the truth of the divine becomes manifest”.

The Hard Problem and the Prior Mind

Shah utilizes the “Hard Problem” of consciousness—the question of how physical brain processes give rise to subjective, qualitative experience (qualia)—to expose the limits of materialism. He argues that if the universe were purely material, there would be no reason for “interiority” or the “feeling of being”.

Shah’s argument for a “Prior Mind” is structured as follows:

1. Material Inertia: Inert matter is not self-aware; it cannot generate subjective experience through random interactions.
2. Failure of Reductionism: Despite hundreds of theories, science cannot explain why carbon atoms and electrical signals should “feel” like anything.
3. The Divine Source: If a “dead” universe cannot generate life or mind, consciousness must come from a transcendent Prior Mind (God) who “breathed into him of His Spirit” (Quran 32:9).

He dismisses “panpsychism” as a “metaphysical last resort” and “illusionism” as “self-refuting,” because an illusion requires a conscious subject to be deceived. For Shah, our own consciousness is a “living signpost towards the Infinite”.

Quantum Mechanics and the Causal Joint of Divine Action

Dr. Shah explores how 20th and 21st-century physics provide “conceptual room” for divine interaction without violating the laws of nature.

Copenhagen Uncertainty and Occasionalism

Shah analyzes the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that a system exists in a “superposition” of all possible states until an observation causes the wavefunction to collapse. Shah suggests that this inherent indeterminacy provides a “causal joint” for divine agency. In this view, “God, without breaking the laws of nature, could influence which particular outcome occurs when a quantum system collapses”.

He relates this to the Islamic doctrine of occasionalism, where God determines every event moment by moment. By influencing these quantum collapses, God can steer events in the macroscopic world discreetly—a process referred to as non-interventionist objective divine action (NIODA). This framework allows for miracles and divine providence to be understood as “highly improbable but ‘natural’ events” rather than violations of physical law.

God as the Ultimate Observer

Shah also considers the role of the “observer” in quantum mechanics. If measurement requires a conscious observer to collapse the wavefunction, Shah ponders if an “omnipresent divine consciousness could be the great ‘Watcher’ that underlies reality”. This aligns with his argument that “the very tools we use to seek truth presuppose that our minds are more than random neuron firings”.

The “Two Books” Paradigm: Nature and Scripture

A foundational principle of Dr. Shah’s work is the “Two Books” theory, which posits a fundamental unity between the Book of Scripture (the Quran) and the Book of Nature (the created universe).

The Unity of Truth

Shah argues that because God is both the Author of the Quran and the Creator of the universe, truth is ultimately unified. He revitalizes this classical Islamic doctrine by highlighting the linguistic symbiosis in the Quran, noting that the term āyah (sign) is used interchangeably for verses of scripture and phenomena in nature, such as the sun, moon, and winds.

For Shah, “intellectual engagement with creation is an integral part of faith”. He suggests that studying a cell under a microscope is “an act of exegesis parallel to studying a verse of the Quran”. He maintains that if a conflict appears between science and scripture, it is the result of human misinterpretation, because “God does not lie, neither in His words nor His works”.

The Argument from Absence: Hydrological Integrity

As a specific verification of the Quran’s divine origin, Shah presents the “Argument from Absence”. He focuses on the Quranic description of the hydrological cycle and notes its “miraculous lack” of the scientific errors and mythological misconceptions that were universal in the 7th century.

While contemporaries of the Prophet Muhammad believed in myths such as Plato’s “Tartarus” (a subterranean abyss feeding springs) or Aristotle’s “condensation theory” (air turning into water in mountain caverns), the Quran describes a “precipitation-based model” that aligns with modern hydrology. Shah argues that this “strict adherence to a precipitation-based model, centuries before Palissy and Mariotte, constitutes a ‘negative miracle’”. This absence of error “stands as a testament to an authorship that transcended the human limitations of the Prophet Muhammad’s era”.

Table 3: The “Argument from Absence” in Quranic Hydrology

Historical Myth (7th Century)	Proponent	Scientific Reality (Modern)	Quranic Stance
Myth of Tartarus	Plato	Subterranean abyss is non-existent; water comes from rain.	Absent: Focuses on rain and winds (30:48).
Oceanic Thrust	Thales	Ocean pressure does not force water into land.	Absent: Emphasizes clouds and gravity.
Condensation in Caverns	Aristotle	Mountains store water (snow), they don’t “create” it from air.	Absent: Mentions “lofty mountains” as “sweet water” sources (77:27).
Abyssal Circulation	Anaximander	Surface runoff and infiltration sustain rivers.	Absent: Describes water cycles with precise stages.

Biological Continuity and the Critique of Creationism

In light of the “Two Books” paradigm, Dr. Shah identifies himself as a proponent of guided evolution (theistic evolution). He argues that biological evolution is a scientific reality established through molecular biology and genetics, and that the perceived conflict with the Quran stems from “wrong theology, not the Quran itself”.

Evolution as Divine Mechanism

Shah highlights that the Quran describes creation occurring “in stages,” which he believes encompasses the long, gradual process of evolution. He is a sharp critic of prominent Muslim creationists like Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya, calling their refusal to accept common ancestry “scientifically illiterate”. He argues that genomic evidence, such as shared endogenous retroviruses and chromosomal similarities, is “incontrovertible”.

Shah poetically bridges the gap by stating: “The helical structure of DNA is not a rival to the Divine Word; it is the mechanism of the Divine Will”. In this view, the “branching tree of evolution” is a set of āyāt (signs) that point to the Creator’s wisdom and the “Oneness of God” (Tawhid).

Celestial Mechanics: Sagittarius A* and the Orbits of the Divine

Dr. Shah expands his cumulative case into the realm of galactic dynamics, exploring how Quranic verses regarding celestial motion find a “meaningful parallel” in modern astrophysics.

From Solar-Centric to Galactic Dynamics

Shah argues for a shift in interpretation from a “solar-system-centric lens” to a “galactic-centric” one. He analyzes verses such as Surah Ar-Ra’d (13:2), which mentions that the sun and moon are each “running [its course] for a specified term”. While traditional exegesis focused on the visible sky, Shah notes that modern astronomy shows our entire Solar System is anchored by the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*) at the center of the Milky Way.

He draws a parallel between the Sun anchoring the planets and Sgr A* anchoring the dense cluster of stars in the galactic nucleus. He cites the Nobel Prize-winning tracking of stellar orbits (such as the star S2) near the galactic center as empirical testimony to a “purposive Creator” who “arranges [each] matter”. For Shah, the “gravitational balance” that keeps galaxies from flying apart is a metaphysical proof of the “efficacy of the Word” against the entropy of existence.

Omniscience and the Infrastructure of Extra Dimensions

To resolve the theological question of how God can be “all-knowing” and “everywhere” at once, Dr. Shah utilizes theories from modern physics, such as String Theory and M-theory.

The Higher-Dimensional Encompasser

Shah argues that God’s omniscience—His perfect knowledge of every subatomic particle and thought—requires a “structural mechanism” in reality. He posits that “Omniscience of God demands Omnipresence of some sort,” leading to the conclusion that “physics should include extra dimensions”.

Using the “Flatland” analogy, Shah explains that a three-dimensional being interacting with a two-dimensional world would seem “god-like” because it could see “inside” closed 2D rooms and appear or disappear from their plane instantly. Similarly, a higher-dimensional presence could permeate and encompass every point in our 3D world without being restricted by its boundaries. This conceptually maps the Quranic attribute of Al-Muḥīṭ (The Encompasser) to the extra spatial or temporal dimensions proposed in string theory. Thus, God’s all-knowing nature hints that reality has more layers than the observable 3D world, enabling a divine presence that “permeates everywhere”.

The Coherence of Monotheism and the Unified Mind of God

The final synthesis of Shah’s work focuses on the “coherence of monotheism” as the most rational and “economical” explanation for the universe.

Parsimony and the Laws of Nature

Shah argues that if there were multiple competing powers, the result would be “cosmic chaos”. He quotes Quran 21:22: “If there had been in the heavens or earth any gods but Him, both heavens and earth would be in ruins”. The fact that the laws of physics are consistent across billions of light-years—as seen in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field—is consistent with the monotheistic view of one Creator ordaining universal laws.

He synthesizes this coherence through three lenses:

1. Philosophical: Monotheism resolves the question of “why is there something rather than nothing” by pointing to a single Necessary Being.
2. Theological: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all proclaim the “Oneness of God” (Tawhid), which unifies truth, morality, and purpose.
3. Scientific: The intelligibility of nature and the precise constants suggest one “Lawgiver” and one “Fine-tuner”.

Shah concludes that science is only possible because a rational God made a rational universe that is “holistically interconnected”. This “kinship between the rationality within us and the rationality ‘out there’” is the ultimate indicator of the imago Dei—the human mind created to perceive the Mind of God.

Conclusion: The Final Synthesis of the Cumulative Case

The research presented here demonstrates that the case for God’s existence is not an archaic relic of pre-scientific thought, but a robust and dynamic framework that gains strength from the very discoveries of modern physics and biology. By summarizing the “Mystery of Existence” and embellishing it with the extensive corpus of Dr. Zia H. Shah MD, this analysis has woven a narrative that bridges the gap between the material and the transcendent.

The cosmological argument, supported by the BGV theorem and Avicenna’s logic, establishes the necessity of a non-contingent origin. The teleological argument, highlighted by the mind-boggling precision of the cosmological constant ($1/10^{120}$), reveals an architectural intent that the multiverse and the “Magical Jacket” metaphor show cannot be dismissed as mere chance. The conscious deficit in naturalism points toward a “Prior Mind,” while the “Argument from Absence” in Quranic hydrology provides an empirical sign of a text that transcends its 7th-century context.

Ultimately, the “Two Books” theory of Zia H. Shah offers a path for the modern mind to reconcile faith with reason. In this worldview, the “Lord of the Worlds” is the sovereign of a multiverse that magnifies His glory, and the extra dimensions of physics serve as the infrastructure for His omniscience. The cumulative case does not rely on a single proof but on the “harmonious convergence” of all signs—from the orbits of stars around Sagittarius A* to the subjective depths of human consciousness. This synthesis fulfills the Quranic promise that the truth will become manifest through signs “in the horizons and within themselves.”

Thematic Epilogue: Returning the Gaze

In the final chapter of the Quranic Surah Al-Mulk, the reader is issued a vivid challenge: “You will not see any flaw in what the Lord of Mercy creates. Look again! Can you see any flaws? Look again! And again! Your sight will turn back to you, weak and defeated” (67:3-4). This “invitation to search for flaws” serves as the spiritual culmination of the cumulative case for God.

As this report has explored, the deeper science probes into the heart of reality—whether through the lens of the Hubble telescope or the equations of quantum mechanics—the more it encounters a universe that appears remarkably “just right.” The “weakness” of the returning sight described in the verse is not a failure of vision, but an overwhelming of the intellect by the sheer majesty and precision of the cosmos.

For the modern seeker, the mystery of existence is no longer a dark void of “brute facts.” Instead, it is a transparent “Book of Nature” where every physical constant is a divine word and every galactic orbit is a scriptural sign. In the synthesis of Zia H. Shah MD, the conflict between science and religion is dissolved into a “Celestial Harmony,” where the human mind, in discovering the laws of the universe, is simply “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” This is the ultimate triumph of truth: the realization that the universe “knew we were coming” because a faithful, loving God directed the pencil that wrote the numbers of reality.