Badges mark quoted or attributed material (Qur'an, hadith, another author, an opposing view). Unbadged passages are Maulana Wahiduddin Khan's own words.
دنیا کا خاتمہ p. 164
جدید سائنس کے بانی سرآئزاک نیوٹن (وفات1727) نے 1704 میں قوانینِ طبیعی کا مطالعہ کرکے بتایا تھا کہ موجودہ دنیا 2060 میں ختم ہوجائے گی (ٹائمس آف انڈیا، 18 جون 2007)۔ اب دنیا بھر کے تمام سائنس داں خالص مشاہدات کی بنیاد پر یہ بتارہے ہیں کہ گلوبل وارمنگ کے نتیجے میں دنیا کا خاتمہ یقینی بن چکا ہے۔ تہذیب کا مزید ارتقا اب سرے سے یہاں ممکن ہی نہیں۔ p. 164
الون ٹافلر(Alvin Toffler) کی کتاب ’فیوچر شاک‘ پہلی بار 1970میں چھپی۔ اس کتاب میں الون ٹافلر نے بتایا تھا کہ دنیا انڈسٹریل ایج سے نکل کر اب سپرانڈسٹریل ایج میں داخل ہورہی ہے۔ تہذیب کا اگلا دَور مکمل آٹومیشن (complete automation) کا دور ہوگا۔ پُش بٹن کلچر (push button culture) اِس حد تک ترقی کرے گا کہ ہر کام آٹومیٹک طورپر ہونے لگے گا۔ لیکن گلوبل وارمنگ کا مسئلہ تکمیلِ تاریخ کے بجائے خاتمۂ تاریخ (end of history) کا پیغام لے کر سامنے آگیا۔ p. 165original + quote
تاریخِ انسانی کا یہ ظاہرہ بلا شبہ آج کا سب سے بڑا سوال ہے۔ اِس سوال کی اطمینان بخش توجیہ صرف با خدا کائنات کے نظریے میں موجود ہے۔ بے خدا کائنات کے نظریے کے تحت، اِس ظاہرے کی کوئی اطمینان بخش توجیہ کرنا سرے سے ممکن ہی نہیں۔ p. 165
اِس طرح کی مثالیں واضح طورپر ثابت کرتی ہیں کہ بے خدا کائنات کے نظریے میں ایک بہت بڑا خلا موجود ہے، وہ یہ کہ اِس نظریے کو ماننے کی صورت میںایک انتہائی بامعنیٰ کائنات ایک انتہائی بے معنیٰ انجام پر ختم ہوتی ہوئی نظر آتی ہے۔ p. 166
دوسری طرف، با خدا کائنات کا نظریہ اِس نقص سے مکمل طور پر خالی ہے۔ باخدا کائنات کے نظریے کو ماننے کی صورت میںیہ ہوتا ہے کہ بامعنیٰ کائنات کا انجام ایک انتہائی بامعنیٰ مستقبل پر منتہی ہوتا ہے۔ یہ واقعہ، باخدا کائنات کے نظریے کے حق میںایک ایسی دلیل کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے جو عقل اور منطق کو پوری طرح مطمئن کرنے والا ہے۔ p. 166
Flaw in creationists’ argument, by Paul Davies p. 166
We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith either divinity or physical laws. True meaning is to be found within nature. Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all to convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the result would be lethal. To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. p. 167
It happens that you need to set 30-something knobs to fully describe the world about us. The point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms could not exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses, and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life. So what's going on? Fuelling the controversy is an unanswered question lurking at the very heart of science - the origin of the laws of physics. Where do they come from? Why do they have the form that they do? Traditionally, scientists have treated the laws of physics as simply "given," elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth, and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science. p. 167unverified
Illusory impression p. 167
But the embarrassment of the Goldilocks enigma has prompted a rethink. The Cambridge cosmologist Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, suggests the laws of physics aren't absolute and universal but more akin to local bylaws, varying from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God's eye view would show our universe as merely a single representative amid a vast assemblage of universes, each with this own bylaws. Mr. Rees calls this system "the multiverse," and it is an increasingly popular idea among cosmologists. Only rarely within the variegated cosmic quilt will a universe possess bio-friendly laws and spawn life. It would then be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe apparently customized for habitation; we would hardly exist in one where life is impossible. The multiverse theory cuts the ground from beneath intelligent design, but it falls short of a complete explanation of existence. For a start there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and allocate bylaws to them. This process demands its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? p. 168unverified
The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its law-like order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better. This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe. p. 168unverified
Outdated Theory p. 168
I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? I propose that the laws are more like computer software: programmes being run on the great cosmic computer. They emerge with the universe at the big bang and are inherent in it, not stamped on it from without like a maker's mark. Man-made computers are limited in their performance by finite processing speed and memory. So too, the cosmic computer is limited in power by its age and the finite speed of light. Seth Lloyd, an engineer at MIT, has calculated how many bits of information the observable universe has processed since the big bang. The answer is one followed by 122 zeros. Crucially, however, the limit was smaller in the past because the universe was younger. Just after the big bang, when the basic properties of the universe were being forged, its information capacity was so restricted that the consequences would have been profound. p. 169unverified
Here's why. If a law is a truly exact mathematical relationship, it requires infinite information to specify it. In my opinion, however, no law can apply to a level of precision finer than all the information in the universe can express. Infinitely precise laws are an extreme idealization with no shred of real world justification. In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself. (Paul Davies is director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and author of The Goldilocks Enigma.) p. 169other source
(https://bit.ly/3LtsyCo [retrieved 29 May 2020]) p. 170