Multiverse thinking: though magical doesn't exclude God's existence - it proves it
Many physicists have begun to cloak themselves in what they hope is the protective garment of the theory of the multiverse to protect them from the deluge of evidence that the universe is finely tuned. As I point out in my previous article, that the universe is finely tuned is not a question:
So physicists and cosmologists are flocking to the secular savior of the multiverse. And to provide further protection against the scientific heresy of a creator God they have further battened the hatches against such an idea by saying there are multiple lines of evidence that point to a multiverse. The theories of eternal inflation, string theory, and dark energy all allude to the possibility that a multiverse exists. Physicist Brian Greene sums it up this way:
Critics are quick to point out there is absolutely no evidence of a multiverse. The idea of a multiverse came primarily as a consequence of the need to explain away fine tuning in the universe, and was then bolstered by extrapolations from those 3 unproven theories; one of which is needed to prop up the otherwise known-to-be-impossible-as-proposed Big Bang theory.
What multiverse supporters fail to see, critics in the scientific community such as theoretical physicist David Gross have pointed out: that the multiverse explanation is just too convenient. And as he puts it:
The problem being that multiverse theory is filled not with science, not with evidence, but with assumptions. Convenient assumptions. Some might call some of those assumptions magical assumptions. Because multiverse adherents assume :
And therein lies the downfall of this talisman for scientists: It's based not on evidence, but on assumptions. One cannot say definitively whether these assumptions are true or not. Obviously those in favor of the theory will say they are, while those opposed will say they are not true. Thus we will not make judgments on the assumptions - since the theory cannot exist without them. (And we need the the theory to exist at least long enough to make the point in the title.) But we will keep in mind that good or bad, none of these assumptions can be proved or disproved.
We can consider these assumptions themselves as either magical thinking, or philosophical considerations. Assuming the big bang gang will not want them considered magical thinking, we will consider them philosophical considerations. But as long as we're invoking the multiverse on philosophical grounds like the above assumptions, that opens the door for other philosophical assumptions to be added. Thus, I will add one more assumption - another philosophical consideration. An assumption that will necessarily lead to the conclusion that God exists. Here it is:
Some of you will recognize this as the first proposition of the Ontological argument for the existence of God. And remember, we are not make judgments on whether the assumptions for a multiverse are good are not; (If we are then my judgment is that all the assumptions that allow for a multiverse are invalid magical thinking, and poof there's goes the multiverse in a single stroke of logic.) Thus if scientists insist on those assumptions; neither can they deny my above assumption - for all are on equal footing - they're all philosophical considerations.
Once that assumption, that first premise of the Ontological argument is allowed and followed to its logical conclusion, one must necessarily conclude that God exists. Because just as the assumptions of multiverse theory allow for the multiverse to exist, and the values of the physical constants to vary in all the possible universes created in a multiverse (which number from 10500 to infinite depending on who you listen to), Likewise the assumption of the Ontological argument makes it impossible for God to vary in each of those worlds - because of the nature of God. God is maximally great in every universe, and because of his nature he necessarily exists in each universe.
Since the world in which we live is one of the possible worlds created as part of the multiverse, as in the other worlds of the multiverse where God must exist, God must necessarily also exist in this world. Thus just as the Higgs Boson will likely mean the destruction of the current theory of inflation - since it is incompatible with the current theory of inflation, likewise upon reflection, current multiverse proponents will realize that their talisman of the multiverse does not carry the enchantment that they had hoped for - namely that it would be able to ward off the need for a creator God. Instead, it has actually proved beyond doubt that there is in fact a creator God. For them it will be as the bad dream that Robert Jastrow spoke of:
They could spare themselves the
nightmare if they only took to heart one truth: In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1.1)
Duane Caldwell | posted 28 August, 2017
This is the fifth article in the Big Bang Magic
Series. The others:
1 Tim Folger, "Science's Alternative to an
Intelligent Creator: The Multiverse Theory", DiscoveryMagazine.com,
November 10, 2008,
3. Inflation is needed to prop up the Big Bang
4. David Gross, ref.
from "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?" Nova
6. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God can be formulated as follows:
7. The nature of God -
another characteristic of the ontological argument. Once you understand
the idea and nature of God, you understand that God must exist. A God
without existence is a logically impossible concept like a square
9. For Details on why
the Higgs Boson (the so called "God Particle") is incompatible with the theory of inflation, and thus
is incompatible with the current Big Bang theory, see my article
Testimony of the Higgs Boson
Jastrow from God and the Astronomers, ref from Good Reads
Multiverse magic - composite by Duane Caldwell, 2017