“Cosmological Argument” is one of the classic arguments for the existence of God. The following question and answer very concisely represent the “Cosmological Argument”:

Question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Answer: God.

“Cosmological Argument” does not consist of a single version. It rather consists of a family of similar arguments. Its most familiar and discussed version is known as the “First Cause Argument”, the details of which are given below:

FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT

Having a long history dating back to ancient Greek philosophers, the “First Cause Argument” also has many versions. Philosophers like Aristotle wrestled with the idea of causation and the possibility of an infinite regress of causes. They argued that if everything has a cause, then there must be a first cause that itself is uncaused, but this first cause was not necessarily identified as God. The argument gained prominence in Judeo-Christian traditions through thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by Aristotle and argued that the universe's order necessitated a first cause, which he identified as God, the uncaused cause. The “First Cause Argument” continued to be debated by philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz. Critics like Bertrand Russell pointed out that the argument does not define what a "first cause" is or why it cannot be part of an infinite causal chain. The debate and discussion on this argument continue today. Philosophers like William Lane Craig defend the argument, while few others try to oppose it.

Thomas Aquinas (1225 AD), an Italian Dominican and theologian, is mostly quoted today as the presenter of the “First Cause Argument”. Nevertheless, many other people are known to have presented this argument in their unique ways. Aquinas's “First Cause Argument”, also known as the “argument from efficient causality”, is one of his five ways to prove the existence of God. Following is the breakdown of his argument:

Premise 1: In our experience, everything that changes or begins to exist has a cause. We observe causation all around us. For example, a ball rolls because it is pushed by someone or something, and a fire burns because of fuel.

Premise 2: If there were an infinite series of causes, that is, everything being caused by something else, which in turn has a cause, and so on, nothing would ever actually be caused. This is because an infinitely regressing series would not have a starting point, and hence nothing would ever get the chain of events going.

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a first cause, something that initiates the cause-and-effect chain but is itself uncaused. This uncaused first cause, Aquinas argues, is God.

This argument is part of a larger project by Thomas Aquinas to demonstrate the existence of God through reason and observation of the world. In this argument, Thomas Aquinas relies on the everyday understanding of causation and the impossibility of an infinite regress. This first cause is not just the first thing in time (though it could be), but something that transcends the causal chain altogether.  

There must be a starting point in the chain of cause and effect. For example, in an empty field, you discover a magnificent chandelier on a chain going up into the sky and through the clouds. Each link in the chain holds the link immediately below it. Then you are told that there is no ‘ceiling’ the chain is attached to, that is, there is no first link to start the chain. The chain just goes up forever to infinity. But if there is no first link, then what is holding the entire chain up? There must be something to start the chain.

Analogy of dominoes

The domino analogy is a common way of explaining the “First Cause Argument”, especially for Aquinas's version of the argument. Here is how it works:

Imagine a line of dominoes standing upright, all perfectly balanced. According to our everyday experience, a domino will not fall over on its own. It needs a cause, like a push or a shove, to topple over. This push initiates a chain reaction, causing each domino to knock down the next one in line. Now, consider the entire line of dominoes. Aquinas argues that just like each domino needs a cause to fall, the entire chain reaction itself must have a first cause – a push that got things started. An infinite line of dominoes already standing would not initiate the fall on its own. There must be a domino that was not caused by another domino falling, but rather by something external to the line. In the argument, this "something external" that initiates the domino fall is analogous to God, who is the uncaused first cause of everything. God, according to Aquinas, is the ultimate cause that sets the universe (the domino chain) in motion. Figure 1 shows that the first mover outside the chain of dominoes is a must to start the chain of cause-and-effect in the chain of dominoes.

Atheists have tried to present counter-arguments against the “Cosmological/First Cause Argument”. But before discussing those counter-arguments, I am presenting here a more powerful version of the “First Cause Argument” which was forwarded by the famous Persian Muslim philosopher, Ibn Sina, known as Avicenna in the West. His argument successfully answers the majority of the atheistic counter-arguments against the “First Cause Argument”.

“PROOF OF THE TRUTHFUL" BY IBN SINA

Ibn Sina was a towering figure in the Islamic Golden Age. He is known as Avicenna in the West. He was a polymath equally brilliant in philosophy and medicine; he flourished during the 11th century. He served as a physician and advisor to various rulers in the Iranian region. The following text represents Ibn Sina’s version of the “First Cause Argument” for the existence of God. His argument is known as the “Proof of the Truthful”, which is called "Burhan al-Siddiqin" in Arabic. "Burhan" means "proof" or "demonstration", and "al-Siddiqin" means "of the truthful" or "of the sincere ones". This philosophical work is part of Ibn Sina’s larger treatise, "Kitab al-Shifa" (The Book of Healing), which explores various aspects of philosophy, science, and theology. In "Burhan al-Siddiqin", Ibn Sina presents his argument for the existence of God, based on his concept of the "Necessary Being" (Wajib al-Wujud). This work showcases his innovative and influential approach to philosophical theology. Ibn Sina classifies existence into the following three types:

1. Necessary Being (Wajib al-Wujud): This refers to the existence that is absolutely necessary and cannot conceivably not exist. In Ibn Sina's philosophy, this term is synonymous with God. The existence of Wajib al-Wujud (Necessary Being) is self-evident and eternal, not needing any external cause.

2. Possible being (Mumkin al-Wujud): This refers to things that are contingent and can exist or not exist. They depend on something else for their existence. This category encompasses all created things in the universe, from a grain of sand to a complex organism. They have the potential to exist, but their existence is not guaranteed. Thus, it is possible that it exists, and it is equally possible that it does not exist. It is contingent that is it is conditioned or dependent on something else for its existence which in this case would be its cause.

3. Impossible being (Mustahil al-Wujud): This refers to things that are logically impossible to exist. They are self-contradictory concepts. Examples include a square circle, a mountain without a base, or an infinite number that can be counted. This would be a complete category error so we do not have to think about this impossible existence anymore. Thus, these are not relevant to the argument.

It seems that most things in the world are contingent and caused. When we say caused, it does not simply mean that, for example, I exist because my parents decided to have a baby or that the table exists because someone decided to make it. This is also true, but by contingence/cause, Ibn Sina means something more profound. I only exist because the parts that make me up exist. In this particular configuration, I only exist because the air that I breathe exists, which gives me life. I exist because of the just right amount of heat on Earth so that I do not freeze or burn to death. Every part of me that makes me what I am is also, in turn, a contingent being dependent on and caused by its parts and conditions. Those things are themselves contingent on other things, and this chain of contingencies goes on. None of these things that we think of are “necessary beings” in themselves.  There is nothing about their nature or essence that tells us that they have to exist. Thus, the existence of every “possible being” is due to other things. So, all contingent things are contingent as they are dependent and conditioned by something else, or they are caused by something else.

So, the question arises, are all things contingent, or is it possible that there is a “Necessary Being”, something that necessarily exists by itself without depending on anything else? This is what Ibn Sina aims to investigate in his argument. If the answer is yes, then whatever “contingent being” we take as our starting point, is either dependent on or caused by a “Necessary Being” or by another “contingent being”. If you say the first thing that we consider contingent is caused by a “Necessary Being”, then the argument is done. But, since most of us are probably scientific rational people, we would say “no”. For example, a microphone is contingent as it is dependent on or caused by other things, which are in themselves contingent and dependent on other things in turn, and so on. This will make an infinite chain of “contingent beings”. But you might say in the end, there must be something that stops that chain of dependence, which in itself is not dependent on anything else before it. Well then, you have concluded that there is a “Necessary Being” and the argument is done. Ibn Sina further takes this argument to another level as follows:

The possibility that the universe is a “Necessary Being” 

Presume that all existence that we can know is contingent. We can perhaps consider that the whole chain or the whole set of all contingent things, that is, all things in the universe taken together as a whole, may be a “Necessary Being”. Everything we can know in the universe seems to be contingent because everything is dependent on something you know is caused by something else. But that is unsatisfactory because then why are there things at all? If everything is dependent on something else, then where is the source of these things?  What is the first cause, as Aristotle would call it, because no matter how far we push the argument, we always end up with more contingency and never reach a cause that stands on its own independently at the start of the chain. So again, let us then presume that perhaps the totality of all contingent things, this whole set together, is a “Necessary Being” as depicted in Figure 2.

While we know that all the individual constituents of that whole are contingent things, however, the whole itself is somehow a “Necessary Being”. This argument does not hold to Ibn Sina. Why? Because this totality is a collection or amalgamation of parts. If that whole is dependent on its parts to make it, then it is no longer a “Necessary Being” as it is contingent too. It is because it is dependent on its contingent parts and has been caused by them, as shown in Figure 3 ahead.

Ibn Sina writes, “If that (other) (one existent in the chain) goes on to infinity, every one of the units of the chain will be possible in essence. (But) the whole chain depends on these units. Thus, the chain too will not be necessary and becomes necessary through another.” 

Then Ibn Sina discusses the four options. The first option has already been discussed to some degree, that is, maybe the whole set or chain taken as a whole does not need a cause. Well, it has already been discussed that it is caused because it is dependent on its constituent parts. Ibn Sina said that it is “necessitated by its units”.  The second option is that perhaps all of the individual units are the cause of the whole set. But this does not make sense because all the units are contingent. So, they cannot cause themselves and therefore not the whole either. Thirdly, maybe one unit in the chain is the cause, but this is not the case either, because again each unit is contingent. If you would say that one of the units is not contingent but necessary, then that unit would not be part of the set anymore because the set was a set of contingent things. So, it would be outside the set, and again, our problem would not be solved. We are only left with the fourth option, that the whole set of contingent things that is the whole universe with all its existence must require a cause that is external to its units. This only logical option is represented in Figure 4.

Ibn Sina further says, “Every totality organized of causes and effects consecutively, including a non-caused cause, has this uncaused cause as an extremity; for if this cause were an intermediate, it would be caused.” So, we have reached an inevitable conclusion based on the logical experiment that Ibn Sina is taking us on. There must be a “Necessary Being” that is external to the set of all contingent or possible beings. Something that by definition has to exist and could not possibly not exist. It is the uncaused cause of all things beyond time and space. This “Necessary Being” (Wajib al-Wujud) is God.

Ibn Sina says, “It has become clear that every chain organized of causes and effects, be it finite or infinite, is in need of a cause external to it if it does not include anything save effects. It is necessary that this external cause be linked to it as an extremity. It has also become clear that if this chain includes an uncaused thing, then this thing is an extremity and a limit. Therefore, every chain terminates in that whose existence is necessary in itself.”

Nature of “Necessary Being” 

The aforementioned argument also makes certain things necessary for the “Necessary Being”. It has to be beyond time and space, as we said, otherwise it would be bound by those things and thus contingent. It cannot be made up of any parts. If it were made of parts, it would be dependent on those parts, thus caused by those parts, and it would then not be a “Necessary Being” anymore. According to Ibn Sina: “If the essence of that whose existence is necessary is composed of two or more things that unite, it becomes necessary by them. One of these things or every one of them will be before it and a constituent of it. Therefore, that whose existence is necessary is indivisible, whether in concept or quantity.” For the same reason, the Necessary Being must be immaterial and incorporeal to not be dependent on a body. It is also unlike anything in the world not sharing the genus, species, or similarity with anything in the created world.

Ibn Sina said, “The First has no alike, no contrary, no genus, and no difference. Thus, it has no definition and cannot be indicated except by pure intellectual knowledge.” In this way, Ibn Sina also takes this argument further by attempting to prove that this “Necessary Being” or God aligns with the theological tenets of the Islamic religion. Most importantly the “Necessary Being” is one. This oneness of God affirms the basic Islamic principle or tenet of monotheism. After all, why does there have to be only one “Necessary Being”? Could there be two or three or even ten “Necessary Beings”? Well, let us suppose that there are two “Necessary Beings”. Because they are two, there must be something that separates them as shown in Figure 5.

So, within the reality of these two, there must be something that makes them similar. But also, other aspects that make them distinct from each other, otherwise they would be identical and not two different things. But if that is the case, then this means that they are made up of parts or aspects that are different from each other, and then they would not be necessary anymore. But it would be caused by those parts, and therefore both of them are now dependent on some other actual, truly “Necessary Being”. So, this is absurd. In other words, there must be only one “Necessary Being” or God.

So, in a nutshell, this is Ibn Sina’s proof or argument for the existence of the true one God, Allah SWT. This argument has become very influential throughout history. Ibn Sina believes that he has proven that there is a “Necessary Being” and that “Necessary Being” has certain attributes and qualities that align with the Islamic concept of God (Allah SWT).

SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE ARGUMENT

The idea that God created the universe is not liked by the atheists. Therefore, atheists want the universe to be eternal, having no beginning or end. Renowned atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “The universe is just there, and that’s all”, implying that there is no God. There is no need for the Creator if the universe has not been created and has existed forever. Thus, the matter in this universe is the only reality we should believe in. This is also the philosophy of materialism, which Oxford Dictionary defines as, the "Belief that nothing exists but matter and its manifestations …”

The theist philosophers, on the other hand, assert that God created the universe. There is something rather than nothing because of God, as asserted in the “Cosmological Argument”. Apart from theist philosophers, the sacred text of some religions also asserted the “creation of the universe” by God. For example, according to the Holy Quran, “And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills.” (Surah Shura, Ayat 29).

Early in the 20th century, astronomers generally did not consider the origin of the universe. The prevailing view, dating back to ancient Greece, was of an eternal and static universe. However, the 20th century brought a revolution in the field of cosmology. Edwin Hubble's observations of an expanding universe in the 1920s challenged the static view of the universe. Thus, two contrasting theories emerged: the “Steady-State Theory” and the “Big Bang Theory”. The Steady-State theory, championed by Fred Hoyle, proposed an eternal universe, constantly expanding but maintaining a uniform density through the continuous creation of new matter. This theory offered a comforting image of a universe unchanging across vast stretches of time. The Big Bang theory, with Georges Lemaître as an early proponent, proposed a dramatic origin for the universe in a single, momentous event – a colossal explosion from which all matter and energy erupted. The theory envisioned a universe constantly cooling and evolving, with galaxies and stars forming over time.

Later, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in 1965 strongly supported the Big Bang theory. The CMB, a faint echo of the universe's hot, early stages, was difficult to explain in the steady state model. As further evidence accumulated with time, the Big Bang theory became the dominant theory for the universe's origin. The Big Bang proposes a transformative moment where the universe we know began. Today, scientists understand the Big Bang not just as the birth of matter and energy, but as a far more fundamental event. According to our current understanding, the Big Bang was not simply a huge explosion within a preexisting spacetime. Instead, it is believed that time, space, and even the laws of physics emerged with the Big Bang. This mind-bending concept suggests that our familiar notions of time and space, along with how matter and energy interact, are all products of that singular, monumental event.

The question of what existed “before” the Big Bang remains a complex and ongoing debate in cosmology. The Big Bang, with its focus on a beginning, does raise intriguing questions about the nature of existence and the possibility of a “First Cause.” This question certainly implies, in Arthur Eddington's words, the 'philosophically unfavorable' fact for the materialists, that is, the existence of a Creator. It means that the universe has come out into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created. The universe is therefore a creation. And creation needs a Creator.  And that creator is God.

Many scientists who do not blindly condition themselves to be atheists have admitted the role of an Almighty Creator in the creation of the universe. This Creator must be a being Who has created both matter and time, yet Who is independent of both. Well-known astrophysicist Hugh Ross has this to explain in his book: “If time’s beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorems say, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in the equivalent of a time dimension completely independent of and preexistent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn’t. It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe. Pantheism and atheism do not square with the facts.” 

The aforementioned discussion shows how the latest scientific discoveries have provided support to the “Cosmological Argument” to prove the existence of God. Further discussion on the topic of the Big Bang is included in the section "miracle of the holy Quran" where you will be surprised to read the verse of the Holy Quran mentioning the Big Bang. Yes, the mention of the Big Bang in a book that was revealed by Allah SWT (God) around 1,450 years ago in the middle of a desert to a person, Prophet Muhammad PBUH, the last prophet of God.

ATHEISTIC ATTEMPTS AGAINST THE ARGUMENT

Atheists being the people who refuse to believe in God, always engage in arguments to deny His existence. They constantly come up with arguments against God, whether logical or illogical. Nevertheless, some atheists, after observing the signs of God ultimately become theists. The following discussion shows the common counter-arguments by the atheists against the “Cosmological Argument” for God: 

The universe existed forever

Atheists want the universe to be eternal, having no beginning or end. In this way, they think that there will be no need for God Who created the universe. I have already discussed this point in detail, that science proves that the universe came into existence, and therefore it had a beginning. Science also tells us that the universe will eventually have an end. So, scientifically speaking, the universe is not eternal. It is estimated that the universe was created around 13.8 billion years ago. Thus, modern science has already rejected the concept that the universe has existed forever. Even before these scientific discoveries, Ibn Sina had logically proved that the universe could not be a “Necessary Being”. The “Necessary Being” is only Allah SWT (the true One God).

Who created God? 

Immediately after listening to the “First Cause Argument”, most atheists ask, “Who created God?” Theists answer that God was not created, and thus existed forever. God, by definition, is a “Necessary Being” that exists on His own without any support. If any god is created, then he is a false god, not the true one God. The true God must exist as the “First Cause” of the cause-and-effect chain to start the chain. Then the atheists say that if God can exist forever, then why can’t the universe exist forever? The same type of argument was given by renowned atheist astronomer, Carl Sagan, as mentioned below: 

Carl Sagan said, “The general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct. What happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that God created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must, of course, ask the next question. Where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question. Why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? There's no need for a creation; it was always there.  Here, these are not easy questions cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth.”

Here, Carl Sagan is trying to say that if God existed forever, why cannot we conclude the same for the universe? His logic in assuming that the universe may exist forever is to save one step in the chain of causality. This is poor logic indeed, as saving one step is not important here. It is important to reach the right conclusion. On the contrary, people of science and logic should try to push the chain ahead to know more and more about reality. He, on the other hand, is trying to stop the chain earlier to get rid of the concept of God.

Some atheists have tried to push the chain further with the same intention of getting rid of God. This will be discussed later in this section. Anyway, if we consider the line of argument provided by Carl Sagan, that either the universe existed forever or God existed forever, then science has already provided the solution to this problem. According to the most accepted scientific view, the universe did not exist forever. It came into existence around 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Matter, space, time, and energy were all created with the Big Bang. So, the only being Who exists forever is God as depicted in Figure 6. 

Allah SWT, the One True God, Who caused the Big Bang, created matter, space, time, and energy. Therefore, God Himself is not dependent on matter, space, time, and energy. He is not matter but the Creator of matter. So, we cannot compare God with any material object. He is not time-bound but the creator of time. In the same way, God is not bound by any space as He is the creator of space. So, the question, “Where is God?” is meaningless. So, what is God like? There is nothing like Allah SWT as mentioned in the Holy Quran, “He (Allah) is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs from the cattle. He makes you expand in this way. Nothing is like Him. And He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” (Surah Shura, Ayat 11).

Thus, we cannot even imagine what God is like as we are conditioned to think in terms of matter, space, time, and energy. Therefore, we cannot understand anything independent of matter, space, time, and energy. We have limited knowledge about God based on the knowledge provided by God Himself through His prophets. Some knowledge about God and His attributes was discussed in detail earlier.

The question “Who created God?” becomes meaningless in view of the aforementioned discussion about God, that He is even independent of time. For the sake of argument, if we assume that someone else may have created Allah SWT then we are talking in terms of time as this implies that something existed before Allah SWT. We cannot imagine this, but the term “before” is meaningless in the absence of time. So, there was nothing before Allah SWT. Thus, in terms of our thought process with respect to time, Allah SWT is eternal and exists forever, as there is no “before” Him due to the absence of time. Allah SWT is “Necessary Being” independent of matter, space, energy, and time.   

Attempt to push the chain further

Some atheists try to continue the chain in such a way that they can get rid of God, as they do not like the idea of God. For this, they try to use every tool available, including science. One such Atheist scientist was Stephen Hawking, who tried his best to explain how something (the universe) can be made from nothing. 

Stephen Hawking explains that, according to science, there is a thing called negative energy. Negative and positive together make zero, that is, +1 -1 = 0, +5000 – 5000 = 0, or 0 = +1 -1. For example, a man tries to make a mount in a place. He does not need to bring soil from outside to make that mount; he digs soil next to it and makes the mount with that soil. That means he is creating not only a mount but also a pit. That pit is like a negative energy. Together, the mount and the pit offset the positive and the negative. That means zero is the sum of both positive and negative. The same principle applies to the “Big Bang”, meaning that before the “Big Bang”, there was zero, that is, nothing. Then, positive and negative energy split apart with the Big Bang. All the positive energies turned into atoms and became the planets, stars, and galaxies. All the negative energies are bound with space, which is called Dark Energy. Science has proof of this Dark Energy’s existence.

Well, Mr. Hawking has given a good theory to explain the creation of something from nothing. Nevertheless, even though the universe was created from the Big Bang, who triggered the Big Bang in that nothing? Who has split the negative and positive energies from zero? So, the position of God is still not eliminated. The best this logic can do is to explain how God created something from nothing. Stephan Hawking then talks about the quantum laws.  Everything we see is made of atoms, and we know that inside those atoms are quantum particles.  According to quantum physics, particles can suddenly appear and disappear even from nothing.  Well, Mr. Hawking, even such a sudden appearance and disappearance of particles work according to the laws of quantum physics.  Who made the laws of quantum physics? So, God is still not eliminated.

Then Mr. Hawking makes another attempt to eliminate God using science. He explains that science tells us that the entire universe was a singularity or much smaller than a proton at the time of the Big Bang. So, the Big Bang was caused by a particle that suddenly emerged from a place where nothing existed. This can be understood more simply if we look at Einstein's space-time. Every object with mass bends space-time according to its mass. Wherever space is curved, time is also warped.  This warped space-time creates time dilation. Extreme time dilation occurs around a greater massive object.

As we already know, in the universe, black holes have such gravity that even light cannot escape, and time is distorted weirdly. Let's say a clock goes into that black hole. As it falls inward, its clock ticking decreases. It eventually comes to a complete stop at the singularity point where the black hole ends. That clock does not stop because it stops functioning; it stops because there is no such thing as time in the singularity point. Even when the Big Bang happened, it was a singularity smaller than a proton, so there would have been no such thing as time. Only after the Big Bang did time come into existence. He concluded that God would not have had time to create the Big Bang.  

Stephen Hawking says that the search for God is meaningless because there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang. So, the universe is not created by anyone; it is just created spontaneously. This argument again does not eliminate God. Stephen Hawking said, “Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe.”  So, Mr. Hawking, then Who created time? Time must have been created by someone independent of time. Not only independent of time but also independent of matter, space, and energy. As we have already discussed, He is Allah SWT, the True One Al-Mighty God who does not require the help of His creation “time” to create anything, including “time”.

In the absence of “time”, how can Mr. Hawking say that “before” the “Big Bang” there was “nothing”? Did “nothing” become something on its own by separating into positive and negative energies? Someone must have done this. How “nothing” can do something? We know that someone is required to do something. That someone (Allah SWT), the creator of time, existed before the Big Bang independent of time. Then He created that universe, including matter, space, energy, and time in it. In the absence of “time” before the “Big Bang”, He existed forever with nothing “before” Him.

Infinite chain

In an attempt to avoid God, some atheists even wish that this chain of cause-and-effect could go on without an end. They try to prove that the chain is infinite, so there is no beginning. So, if there is no beginning to this chain, then how did this chain begin? The absence of a beginning means the absence of the existence of the chain. Even if the chain is infinite, there must be a beginning or reason for the chain. What is the reason for this chain? The same thing Ibn Sina stated as quoted earlier, “If that (other) (one existent in the chain) goes on to infinity, every one of the units of the chain will be possible in essence. (But) the whole chain depends on these units. Thus, the chain too will not be necessary and becomes necessary through another.” Even an infinite chain (if it really is) requires a “Necessary Being”, that is, God. Where did this infinite chain come from? We have no choice but to accept a “Necessary Being” existing forever, independent of time, to start the chain. No starter means no chain. But we know for sure that the chain exists. So the starter exists that is Allah SWT.