Javaid Akhtar's scientific refutation of the concept of infinity, the decision of right and wrong, the success of the opponent. Some sentences are such that they seem very philosophical, impressive and intelligent to hear, but when they are tested on the touchstone of reason, logic and knowledge, they prove to be mere noise of words. Javaid Akhtar's claim that *everything is infinite* (Infinite Regress (of Existence)) is also a sentence of the same nature. This sentence gets applause on the mic, but the question is whether this sentence can stand in front of philosophy, science and common sense? The answer is clear: no. Infinite is not a poetic metaphor but a strict philosophical term. Infinite is that *which has no beginning, no end, no change, no decay, no increase or decrease*. Now, if the world, man and the universe are examined in the light of this definition, then man himself appears to negate this claim. Man is born, grows, gets old, gets sick and eventually dies. How can one who is himself subject to the law of annihilation be infinite? Look at the universe, stars are formed, explode when the fuel runs out, galaxies scatter, and science itself admits that the universe will one day be subject to Heat Death or kinetic decay. Time is divided into moments, passes, becomes the past, how can something that is itself ending be infinite? Matter and energy also change, are consumed, are limited, all this is evidence that the universe is accidental, not eternal.
There is a basic principle of philosophy:
Whatever changes, cannot be Eternal. Day and night, seasons, the rise and fall of nations, the continuous expansion of the universe, all these are shouting that this system is not static. If everything had been from eternity, why would there be this change? Change itself is an announcement that there is an existence behind it that is itself free from change. Now science is referenced *and this Javaid Akhtar the disgraced also gave it* but the interesting thing is that science itself negates this theory (Big Bang) talks about the beginning of the universe (Entropy) testifies to the decay of every system, and modern physics believes that Time and Space themselves have been created. If everything was infinite, the concept of beginning, decay and end would become meaningless. If viewed from the point of view of science, science does not fight with God, but testifies to the limitation of the universe. After that, a verbal fallacy has come to the fore *which Javaid the pig also did*. If God has always been, then (always) is also time, so is the world always with God?
This is not an argument but a Semantic Fallacy, that is, taking the wrong meaning of the word and drawing a conclusion. There is a clear difference in philosophy (Eternal) eternal (Timeless) (Everlasting) always running within time (Temporal) subject to time (Timeless) beyond time. Allah is Eternal and Timeless, while the universe is Temporal. God's *always* being is not in the sense that He is in time, but in the sense that time is His creation, time does not apply to God, so this concept is completely wrong. If only to the extent of assumption, God is considered to be within time, then Before and After will apply to Him, He will change, and what changes is limited. A limited God is no longer God but becomes a part of the universe, then waiting in hearing prayers, delay in decisions and gradation in knowledge will be necessary, which is why reason compels us to consider God as Timeless, otherwise the concept of God itself breaks down. Then an emotional question was raised by the pig: *If there is God, why are children dying in Palestine?* This is not a philosophical argument but an Emotional Argument, which is called the Problem of Evil in philosophy. The truth is that this world is not heaven but a testing ground, man commits injustice, man drops bombs, man fires bullets. According to Islam, the death of oppressed children is not a punishment, the real grip is on the oppressor, and if there is no God, then this oppression becomes merely a blind accident, no accountability, no justice, the protest against oppression itself is proof that man believes in absolute justice. Here the opponent's position is clear, balanced and scientific, they consider God separate from the universe, beyond time and the creator, while Javaid Akhtar's position has no solid basis except verbal brilliance, on one side there is a harmonious theory of reason, logic, philosophy and science, and on the other side there is only a slogan, this is nothing but ignorance. Finally, the decision is clear. The universe is not infinite, God is infinite. It is wrong to imagine the beginning or end of God, because He is not bound by time but is the creator of time. To confine God in time is like confining the ocean in a scale. The conclusion is that Javaid Akhtar, the absolute ignorant, could not prove even one thing and all the questions of the opponent remained valid and proud, and the opponent kept answering every question which itself is a distance between right and wrong *Alhamdulillah* his ignorance has been estimated. May Allah Almighty protect Muslims from every trial, and grant them the ability to always strive for Islam, Ameen Ya Rabb Al-Alameen Bijah Al-Nabi Al-Kareem ﷺ. 
*✍️Mutallem Al-Jamiatul Ashrafia✍️*