Let’s say, there’s an engineer who designs a satellite. The life of the satellite is long enough and he sends it into space with 100 years of fuel. There’s no chance that the satellite will get destroyed and not be able to complete it’s 100 years. But after 25 years, the engineer dies!
Now the question is: Will the satellite stop working with the engineer’s death and not complete it’s 100 years?
If you think yes, you don’t possess the IQ to read on. Please stop reading right here!
*****
If you thought no, here’s the real question:
Allah designed this Universe to perfection, there’s no chance of it getting destroyed by external force. He wrote all that is to happen in the Loh (book) with the Qalam (pen) [I hope you do know about the Loh-o-Qalam]. But after 25 years of creating this Universe, Allah died. This Universe will work perfectly as designed till the day it’s supposed to die. Is there any proof that Allah is still alive?
SAWJ’s Note: Get everyone you can to answer this question. Save my beliefs please! No lectures, prove it to me! Okay I was playing with you guys when I typed that but still, do try your luck at answering the question.
And do remember to click on the checkbox for notifications everytime a new comment is posted.
92 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
the analogy is apt, and the question is superbly thought provoking.
but i feel that the deterministic nature of the satellite example doesn’t translate so readily onto the entire idea of existence. the reason being that if we interpret the nature of the Universe as similar to the nature of a satellite, then we presume that there is only a limited set of operations that are available.
but what if the set of operations available within the universe are understood to be infinite?
now the idea of perfect creation is not necessarily at odds with limitless possibilities. the ability to incorporate infinity into design suggests extreme incomprehensibility, but it can still be understood to be perfect.
such a conception of the universe i.e. the limitless universe, in my opinion, does not bring the death of the creator into question. because such a design, which incorporates infinity, also necessitates eternity.
in a sentence therefore - how can something that is eternal have a beginning or an end? (a birth and a death?)
God can not be dead because then who will take care of the deeds we have done here… these kind of things are often linked to atheist who are often misfit in our society therefore look for other ways not get ‘punished’ :-}
The whole thing is that the Universe is not infinite, it has it’s boundaries. For us, it may be limitless but for the creator, it certainly is a closed box.
The Universe is constantly growing and the fact that it’s expanding kills the possibility that it’s limitless. There was a beginning and there will be an end. Which means the question of eternity never gets raised. And the point is that the Universe is working on it’s own, with a defined set of rules and even future. It doesn’t need anyone to look after it.
The question remains, what proof is there that Allah is still alive?
@Imran - If there is no one, then your deeds will go unpunished. How are we to know that there is someone?
I don’t claim to be an expert on this, but I would like to say one thing, if Allah was still not alive as you put it, how would you explain the countless miracles that happen every other day?
The one in a million acts which change lives, stuff which science cannot explain. Maybe there is a person with cancer and doctors say he will die and many times that person with cancer does die, yet there are also miraculous recoveries.
How do these miracles come about if there is no Allah watching and protecting everyone?
What if it was written in the Loh that it is bound to happen? The Universe has to abide by what is written in the Loh but can that be changed? Move along this line and you’ll find your answer!
I don’t know, you just have to believe, faith in the unseen, so I guess you just believe.
If you don’t believe, what do you do?
You believe because you need to believe that there is someone higher watching over you and keeping a record of everything.
@karachi khatmal: Nicely said. But I’d just like to said that the variables in the Universe are only metaphorically infinite. The is no infinite quantity in the Universe - infinity is just an assumption used to simplify mathematical models.
SAWJ, what I can come up with is a simple balance. I can infer from the analogy that the Creation i.e, the Universe, is assumed to be perfect. Perfection is always a balance of something, not the excess and definitely not the absence. Now within this Creation, lets say person A is powerful and capable of exercising his will over a weaker person B. There is a definite imbalance of life here - if we assume that both A and B die one day and during this entire period, A only caused injustice for B. To achieve the balance that would satisfy our original assumption, a further action is required. Judgement. Accountability.
@siras: You can’t just believe, that is what Christians, Jews and all others do. You have to find the answer for every question that arises.
@Absar: By perfection, it can be inferred that it is working “perfectly” the way it’s supposed to by the Loh and that may not necessarily require balance.
In your situation, Judgment occurs after the Universe has ended therefore the Universe is not “perfect” and justice is not available inside the Universe.
And what if indeed Allah has died (nauzobillah), there will be no judgment anyway.
You see, this doesn’t answer the question. I want proof of Allah’s involvement in this Universe, in our lives and I don’t want something that is already in the Loh, like miracles and stuff that are bound to happen.
And I won’t put “nauzobillah” in the question because I want to put myself across as a non-believer. If I put “nauzobillah” in a sentence that already questions the existence of Allah, it would, well, kill the intensity of the question.
Yes, you do need to find an answer and I will come up with an answer hopefully.
Will get back to you about this, need to use lots of brain power!
Well then the question in itself is flawed in that it eliminates the possibility of an answer. By saying that perfection is the characteristic of sticking to the Loh, you count in every single answer as part of that Loh
It becomes like one of those riddles you ask children where you count the fingers of one hand forwards and the other hand backwards to prove to them that you have eleven fingers. Unless you place the riddle differently, you’ll always have eleven fingers 
Question is not flawed. The Universe is perfect in it’s following the Loh but that doesn’t mean there cannot be a different destiny for it. Find the eleventh finger!
Hint: There is something that leads to a Loh change!
Dude, if you have the answer then this exercise is just downright cruel!
See, at one time you define perfection as following the Loh, which has to be perfect for the Creation to be perfect. And then you say that it doesn’t have to adhere to that Law?
Come on! Either the question is flawed, or the answer that you’re thinking of 
Dude there can be multiple states of perfection!
And I’m the most cruel guy you’ll ever find!
You already know the answer to this!!
Absar is right then, this exercise is downright cruel!
Multiple levels of perfection? What a load of crap! If something can be better then ‘Perfect’, then it’s not perfect!
Don’t make me call you names here! 
Abe baawlay, main ne states likha tha, not levels!
Dhakkan, does it matter whether you call it state or level? I mean, if you’re talking about complete perfection, then there can be no ’state’. Because different states of perfection would imply that in one state, a certain set of characteristics is in harmony, and a certain other is in disarray. Wouldn’t make much sense.
state: the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like
level: even, equable, or uniform
State is the condition of the Universe and if multiple states are perfect then they will all be on the ‘level’ of Perfection!
Different value combinations of the same variables in the same Universe can and will give rise to different states that are on the level of perfection.
Inherently, having multiple states must imply a change in some variables. Considering the near-infinite number of variables in the Universe, that would be next to impossible. Unless your Law is perfect. If you change that law, then the perfection of the Creation can not exist any longer.
Good God! I have to leave work now… Damn!! Aaj bilkul kaam nahi kiya :@ I’m giving rise to imperfection in the workplace
We’re talking about God here. Changing the values of near-infinite variables to achieve perfection one way or another sounds difficult to you and me but it should be a piece of cake for God.
And Loh is not the Law. It’s destiny…
Plus the Universe is very much finite so the number of variables is finite too.
its a very interesting question and i used to have a lot of such questions till a few years back. i cant comment on this right now but i have actually emailed this question to a very learned man. ill surely tell you what he has to say on this
Hain? Email kar diya? Nahin yaar!
Tu jawab de dia ya nahin?? Loh is not law but destiny .. is it the answer :O
I’ll share my two cents afterward.
dhakan and baawley: Aptly said
Dude, your post title on tea break has tempted me enough to comment here. It’s kind of my *favorite topic* regardless of HOW MUCH do i know about it.:-)
First of all I don’t get why do you call your post “shrikalicious” since you I don’t find any shirk here. It sounds more athestic than “Shirky” post.
Allah designed this Universe to perfection,
How do you know God has designed this universe only and there is no other system around or going to happen? May be God is planning to create another world after this one? As Quran called Muhammad(S.A.W) as Rahamatul Alemeen(all worlds) rather “Rahmatul Alim”[this world only]. Which other worlds Allah was talking about?
Allah is still alive?
Well the question is who will kill Allah? We are expired because there is something which is more powerful than us and manipulate us. If Allah is someone who can be dead then he is not a God/Allah. Allah or God would be someone who will responsible to kill “current” Allah. Is this not what Newton’s 2nd law talks about?
You might like to read “A brief history of time” by Stephen Hawkings. It’s an interesting read.
oh your post might screw my Inbox but ok… I am subscribed now.
@Asma: I won’t post the answer until you share your two cents!
Loh is not the answer, sorry.
@Adnan: The Universe is the collection of all the worlds out there. Another system may already be working in parallel for all we know. But I’ve kept the ’sample’ small.
“If Allah is someone who can be dead then he is not a God/Allah. Allah or God would be someone who will responsible to kill “current” Allah.”
How are we to know that Allah exists and the above is not true?
I’ve got the book, just haven’t read it yet.
@Adnan: Welcome to my blog!
dude! this is fun =D LoL! I’ve gone through every single comment, nice going guys (and the girls around) =P
But I’ve kept the ’sample’ small.
Now that’s not fair!! :-). It’s just like you say that a Manager can handle only one project which is not true at all. There is one to many relationship anyway!
How are we to know that Allah exists and the above is not true?
Every action happens due to force. This is 2nd law of motion. The creation of Universe is an action performed by a Force(Allah here).
If I believe in your statement, there will be no need of software engineers.
and guys like you and me would be selling “Aloo cholay” on streets of Karachi :p
@Ammar: You had to mention the girls!
@Adnan: I’m worried people will not be able to bear the weight of trying to comprehend the Manager’s project scope!
Just keeping the question easy.
“Every action happens due to force. This is 2nd law of motion. The creation of Universe is an action performed by a Force(Allah here).”
Indeed, but now that the Universe is in motion due to that force, Allah is not needed. You’ve come close to one aspect of the answer.
hehe forget the manager analogy but my question remains, how sure you are that there is only one universe around us or Allah was responsible to manage our universe only? we are not talking about assumptions right if yes then logic doesn’t make sense here and we would have to accept the concept of “belief” anyway.
Allah is not needed.
like a company doesn’t need any owner once its established?
how about God is one of the *input factor* of current model that is, even all things are already programmed by God, He has still kept himself involved to run the business of universe? what do you say about it? even it happens in our daily life. Even the softwares we write we apply this thing to change the default value of variables based on conditions?
p.s: I am sorry but intentionally or unintentionally I do drag I.T in middle. I apologize from non-IT guys here.
p.p.s: You should read the book. Its quite interesting and the way he has explained the end of universe and time by entropy is quite thrilling.
and as I said above, the concept of dead and alive works with this universe only since universe is depandant on time while God is time independant.
@Adnan: Okay let’s say that the scientist put a lot of satellites in the air, would they stop functioning?
We’re not talking about a company here. We’re talking about a standalone system. No input, no output but a lot of changes within. Whatever is to happen, the guidelines (destiny) are written in the Loh.
“Even the softwares we write we apply this thing to change the default value of variables based on conditions?”
You’ve come very close here. Let’s assume a large standalone software written to perfection. Perfect variables, perfect pointers, perfect classes, perfect functions, perfect everything.
But then, what if some variables want their ’scope’ extended, to be given more attributes and stuff? What if they want their destiny to be changed? Let’s assume that the variables have a scope small enough so as not to affect the perfection and functioning of the software upon change.
Ali you mentioned here
Do give sadqa every time you leave the house.
Why Sadqa when it was written that I would be hit by a car anyway? doesn;t it mean you are accepting involvement of God factor anyway?;)
That’s precisely the answer. You’re there! Now wait till I answer my question here. Well done!
Anyone else wanna try?
ehhe i will curious to know what do you reveal
and what made you to say “well done!” :D.
well, if i may say something humbly, the whole problem is no less than a joke. but before proceeding, i will profess that i havn’t bothered to read all the responses clearly.
why say it a joke? because it is based on a number of false premises. when a scientist design something, he doesn’t think it is going to last because HE is going to ensure it. It is just that he trusts the NATURE whose existance is independent of the fact whether scientist is going to live or not. that is why it is as possible that the sattelite gets destroyed during the lfie of the scientist as the case you put in the question.
but come of God. Do you want to imply that Nature exists independant of Him? If so, what is it that you have as a proof for? Don’t tell me that it is since God can do anything. It is an overly misused proposition that flourished on a non-sensical extension of human language devised to capture human thoughts to divine realm.
the matter whether what can God do or cant do is an ill-posed one when it comes to things which we have never observed. And the scenario and its repurcussion is just one of those things. And as we all know that an ill-posed problem can have an infinite number of solutions, the same hold for your question.
But you are lucky that being a student i dont have time to go into this friendly back and forth : )
@Adnan: I’ll do that in a post!
@Brickwall: So…here goes another long response…Phew!!!
The problem is not a joke, first of all.
The problem is not based on false premises. To analogize the satellite to the Universe we must assume that nothing is going to happen externally and no destructive forces are present. I believe I have stated that the satellite will not get destroyed.
You ask me for proof of whether Nature exists independent of Him, whereas I have asked for proof that it does not. You see, you have not proven to me that He exists. Instead, you ask me to prove that He does not. How can I prove an entity like Allah to not exist when He hasn’t been proven to exist in the first place [For the sake of the question, that is]?
You should focus on this, my dear friend.
No dear, you have gotten me completely wrong there. I focused on one thing NOT because I want to tell you that it is true. What I said was meant to show the ill-posedness of the whole problem. As a corollary, any dig into the whole issue is meaningless for anyone who wants an answer in earnest. For idle philosophers, they can sure set some rules and then dabble as to their consequences whilst knowing that it has got no bearing on the reality of things. Because regardless of whatever they come to, there will still be question marks lingering in front of their premises.
Nevertheless, these puzzlers can be good for the tests for inducting people into mensa. If I am not wrong, the aim there is just to test whether a person is able to take a set of premises to its conclusion or not. Right? : )
“I focused on one thing NOT because I want to tell you that it is true.”
Simply put, I want you NOT to tell me but to PROVE it to me.
The issue may be meaningless for you but I don’t see that way. For unintelligent existences, sure the problem may sound like an ill-posed one and they may constantly bicker about how devoid of reality it is but they fail to realize that the aim of the whole problem is to achieve something constructive and that their asinine whimpering is not really going to be helpful!
(Sorry man, couldn’t control myself!)
And from where I see it, I do intend for you to prove that one of the assumptions is wrong but by using the other assumptions. For the satellite case, they may be scientifically wrong but not for the Universe. The Universe does exist, abiding by the destiny decreed in the Loh but prove that Allah is here too. The Universe is self-sufficient with no external threats running fine by the Loh, then where is Allah?
Ah… so I am letting myself dragged into it.
My friend, when we come up with a proposition, it is OUR responsibility to prove it and not the one who thinks it is unproved or unprovable. So whatever underpinning assumptions are there in the problem, first I would like YOU to bring forth some proof in favor. After that will you will be in your right to ask us to disprove and if we cannot, try to figure out the right solution.
As I said before, all the analogies drawn from the case of scientist are baselessly extended to divine realm. Not because I have put up a proof against it already. But because the person who propounded it in the first place didn’t think he had to do some homework : )
And frankly, I don’t mind whatever you said about the problem being not useless. I know that our conclusions and understandings are all like path dependent line integrals (thats cheesy). Since you are not coming to this problem from the path that I do, I must not be surprised that you fail to compute the same results.
And with this, I should quit for real now. I have already used more time that I had on hand. So feel at ease on not getting another response from me on this thread : )
I haven’t put forth a proposition of any sort for the Universe. I’m only asking you to prove that Allah is very much still here!
The scientist’s case has been created so as to imitate the divine case, not to affect it. The understanding to be reached is first created on a smaller scale then expanded on to the real and much larger one.
Path dependant line integrals with different end points!
If you get the time, do go through the whole comment thread.
I thought I might drop my two cents as well…
The scientist created his satellite — his system — based on the laws that govern the universe (as written in the Loh). That is to say that his system is dependent on the system of this universe. Had there been no laws of this universe, his satellite wouldn’t have lasted a minute in its orbit.
However, when Allah created this universe, was there an existing system on which it was based?
Extending it further, if we theorize that Allah Himself was the system that governed the making of the universe, then by that very analogy of the satellite, we can conclude that the universe needs Allah to exist because it is dependent on Him, just like the satellite needed the universe to exist in order to make rounds around the earth.
Did that make any sense?
No man that was way too confusing.
You should not confuse the two cases together. The satellite is a standalone case, just like the Universe. For the sake of the analogy to be complete, we must assume that the satellite is not being acted upon by anything. It’s just there. It’s not making rounds, it’s not doing anything. It’s just sitting in space.
Allah created a self-sufficient perfectly working system. No need for Allah to interfere further. Now the system is working perfectly. And we are a part of it. Our destiny is already decided.
There’s no proof that Allah is dead, but there’s no proof that He’s alive either. Or is it?
The system is independent of Allah, keep that in mind.
And welcome to my blog!
First tell me whether the answer is based on math. Because if it is, there isn’t a remote chance i’ll be able to reach the answer.
This also applies to physics.
*chuckles*
I don’t really agree with the description of the analogy you have given, but never mind, that would change course of the discussion. (I am notorious already for making things more complicated.)
Okay, the system is independent of Allah. Now, if A is independent of B, does it really matter to A if B exists or not? Or looking at it in another way, would A even know that there is something called B? Nope, because A does not depend on B, and thus can live and function without ever knowing B.
So the only way in which A can be aware of B is when B will explicitly interfere with A.
The only way of interfering with this universe will be to change its rules, and that means accessing the Loh itself. I think we can safely assume that only Allah can access it (if He’s alive).
Now destiny (written in the Loh) can be changed only through the power of prayer (as told by the Prophet (peace be upon him) ), and who else is there other than Allah to listen to our prayers?
Bottomline: we pray for something, it gets accepted, the Loh is changed. Do the math.
If, on the other hand, the prayer is not accepted, then again there are alternatives; that is, something bad that was destined to happen to you will not happen as a compensation of your prayer not getting accepted. Again, the Loh will be changed.
Does this make any sense now?
Makes absolute sense and is almost the answer. Sometimes the prayers are not accepted and the destiny is not changed. Or maybe, it was bound to be in that destiny but we didn’t know it. And we kept praying for it.
The answer is something that ‘definitely’ changes destiny!
Well done!
@Hira: It’s neither maths nor physics!
just the fact that man- as God’s creation has been given the ability to think and choose thus mould his own destiny should be the reason God still exists, no?
And once we’ve truly accepted that man CAN think, and thus CAN make a choice about his destiny and thus definitely be able to change it shows that the Loh is changeable, and that God is editing it, and thus God has to exist.
IF the writ was unchangeable the purpose of MAN being given a mind would be redundant.
Whatever a man’s destiny is, is written in the Loh. In reality, the Loh does not force a man to abide by it, rather it only contains what a man will do and face during his lifetime.
Man can think but what he thinks is already in the Loh, so the Loh won’t change.
So I managed to find the answer that resembled the one in your mind.
Will wait for your detailed post about the answer.
Oh come on man! I see where you’re going with this, and that is SUCH A LOAD OF CRAPPP! On the one hand you’re asking the question from an atheist point of view, then on the second you are all too willing to accept that a prayer can change the Loh (which, by the way, is the Law if you look at the broader definition)?? Again.. BULLSHIT!
And don’t give me any of Descartes BS either, okay?
I’ll just add to what Saadat said, and say that you’re showing signs of becoming a NUST instructor (Nazeer Alam maybe?
) who want you to write the answer THEY think is right. But again, I’ll just have to wait for your next post for this.
@Hira: Your comment just reminded me of Sarah McLachlans song “Dear God”. She’d talking to God (duh!), and a line in that song goes “Did you make mankind; After we made you?”
Abe Ulloo Kay Pathay, I only said that to guide him towards my point.
Kinda sounds like Aaloo ke Parathay! Yum!
Next post is here!
I need to go through the comments once I get some sleep.. will come back to this later.
Sure. But it’ll be very confusing, I assure you!
you took enough time to answer and I uselessly visited your site thrice in a day. Now give the me the money of my bandwidth back!!
Man I visited your blog too!
hehhe. Shukriya Janab. It was an interesting post indeed. Hope you will come up something similar in future too.
And Shukria for your kind wishes and prayers regarding my accident. Jazak Allahu Khairan.
take care
Most welcome bro!
Thanks for visiting, had a really good time discussing it with you.