The multiverse and other fairytales
In 1917 in Cottingley, England, 16 and 9 year old cousins Elsie Write and Frances Griffiths believed in fairies and wanted others to believe too. As evidence they produced pictures (viewable here) of what they purported to be real live fairies. By today's photoshop and CGI standards, the fairies in the pictures appear to be simplistic two dimensional hand colored drawings. But a photo expert of the day declared the negatives had not been tampered with, and the pictures caught the eye of writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of famed fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. Less widely known is Doyle was a believer in the paranormal1, and his beliefs included the existence of fairies. Doyle took the photographs as authentic.
Years later, the girls, now women, confessed the
photos had been faked. The question is why had so many, including one so
obviously intelligent as the creator of Sherlock Holmes been so quick to
believe a fanciful story with little or no evidence? Frances, nailed it
on the head in a 1985 interview when she said, "I never even thought of
it as being a fraud – it was just Elsie and I having a bit of fun and I
can't understand to this day why they were taken in – they wanted to be
Segue to the 1980's. The field of cosmology is in crisis. Scientists realize there are a number of problems with the Big Bang theory. (For a few details see my previous article here.) Einstein had died in 1955 without completing what he had hoped would be his magnus opus: a completed Theory of Everything (TOE) - a single, elegant, unified theory that explained everything about the universe, including the current holy grail in cosmology: the unexplainable (in scientific terms) origin of the universe. The current explanation - the singularity that is itself the big bang - has been recognized as totally inadequate, contradicting the laws of physics. As physicist Michio Kaku put it:
To make matters worse, science had discovered that the universe is finely tuned. In an article for the Discovery Center Institute for science and culture, distinguished follow and author Jay Richards explains what fine tuning is:
In that article Richards, who prefers to take a conservative approach to fine tuning parameters, lists 21 features of the cosmos that are fine tuned. (As opposed to 200 as the number of parameters that Metaxas cites as finely tuned in his popular article.7) Richard's conclusion: the universe is fine tuned and thus designed.
On the other hand, British cosmologist and astronomer royal Martin Rees examines in depth 6 of those finely tuned parameters in his book "Just Six Numbers." Though the evidence for fine tuning that results in a world like ours is quite apparent, he refuses to believe that means it points to a designer who fine tuned it. Instead he chooses to believe in a solution as fanciful as fairies, and having the same amount of evidence (none): the multiverse:
Before we pause to consider the same question - take note of the supposed magnitude of the multiverse: "an infinite number of other universes." This is not unique to Rees. Most if not all multiverse evangelists are preaching the "infinite number of universes" message.9 And now back to the question: Why is Rees, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so quick to believe a fanciful story with little or no evidence? (And in the case of the multiverse - it's no evidence.) The answer appears to be the same: he wants to believe. He wants to be taken in. Or more appropriately, he does not want to believe the obvious alternative - the universe is finely tuned because it was designed by, as he puts a "benign Creator".
They hold to such theories because materialistic theories, however impossible they may be, do not invoke a supernatural being. Thus cosmology is no longer after the truth, it's after finding theories that exclude God. I submit their refusal to acknowledge the divine is why it's as Frances said: they want to be taken in by their fanciful stories which they call "scientific" so they can continue to deny the obvious hand of the creator.
Are Inflation and the Multiverse Really without Evidence?
Regarding inflation, I've already made a case that the theory is fatally flawed in the previous article, Which theory has the fatal flaw - the Big Bang or Creation. Let me add to it the conclusions by experts in the field who buy neither the theory nor the evidences the inflation merchants are selling:
Summarizing well respected mathematician and physicist, Sir Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford:
Consider also this critique from physicist John Earman and philosopher Jesús Mosterín:
As for the multiverse, it remains a flight of fancy in search of evidence. Physicists have come up with four different types of multiverses - some where the laws of physics are the same as in our own universe, some where they are not and can be literally anything. In all cases, the number of universes remains the same: infinite. However to prove any of these versions of the multiverse scenario, and call it science, they must come up with more than flights of fancy masquerading as theory. They need to come up with evidence. To find that evidence they turn to particle colliders like the Tevitron at Fermilab in Illinois, where they are smashing protons and anti-protons together to perform a "missing energy search." The theory is they should be able account for all mass and energy that comes out of the collision. If not, the supposition is that it escaped into an extra dimension. Joe Lykken of Fermilab says this about the experiment:
Which means to date, they have not found any
extra dimensions (much less entire universes). And suppose they do find
extra dimensions. Does that prove an entire universe? Further and
more importantly, would a single extra dimension prove an infinite
number of universes as multiverse proponents propose? No - that
would be a huge leap of faith akin to finding a deserted island and
thinking it's deserted because the people you supposed lived there had
technology you supposed could teleport them off of it. And so you
suppose those teleporters teleported them to a starship you suppose is
waiting in orbit to take them to an
exoplanet you suppose they can reach that you suppose will support
There is a simpler explanation for extra dimensions that cosmologists would rather not consider. The discovery of an extra dimension could just as well be evidence of the heavenly realm, as described in the Bible.13 (Thus the discovery of extra dimensions is no threat to Christian theology.) Of course scientists would never allow that consideration or investigation, because the whole point of the multiverse (and evolution) is to eliminate the need for God and his heaven. Regardless of what might be found in the future, the fact remains at this point in time there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of extra-dimensions or a multiverse.
Some will say that Christians are just as gullible because they believe in angels; and belief in angels is no different from belief in fairies. True, Christians believe in angels, but such belief is not akin to belief in fairies. On the contrary, belief in fairies is faith without evidence. Biblical faith is quite different. "The biblical definition of faith is not believing in someone who is not really there, effectively believing in something that doesn't really exist. No, the Biblical definition of faith is responding to reality. It is a response to reality."14 Thus belief in angels is more like belief that there are rings around Saturn and Uranus. You may not have seen them personally, but you believe because you have the reliable recorded testimony of those who have seen them (through telescopes) as well as pictures like the pictures of Saturn from Cassini.
What evidence is there of angels? As we have the recorded testimonies of those who have seen the rings around Saturn, we likewise have many reliable recorded testimonies of those who have seen angels. And we have the physical evidence of the workings of Angels. Let me give you two.
Who Moved the Stone?
Who Released the Apostles from Prison?
Those who claim an angel didn't free them from jail, must explain how the apostles managed to escaped a locked jail, get past armed guards, and do so without breaking the locks. And then having escaped, deciding to appear the next day in the temple courts - not far from where they had escaped from. (Not a wise escape plan if "escape" was indeed the goal.) This is an occasion where seeing a dramatized version such as from the above scene from AD is entertaining, but reading the original is of critical importance, because you'll note the AD version takes the artistic license to depict the locks being miraculously broken, when the bible is clear that a bigger miracle happened: the apostles escaped prison without breaking the locks, without help from outside humans, and without being noticed by the guards. And in obedience to the command from God as delivered by the angel, they appeared in the temple courts to preach the gospel.
So once again it's a matter of evidence. There is much credible evidence for angels; there is no credible evidence of fairies -the Cottingley fairy forgeries being no exception.
Adolf Hitler is often quoted as having said:
Cosmologists have a big lie. And they're telling it frequently so you'll believe. Don't fall for it. God has said:
Hitler merely wanted world domination. Cosmologists who are trying to convince you God didn't do what he said, may not be after your soul, but if you fall for their fanciful lies and thus forsake God, that will in fact be the result. And you'll spend your eternity in a place you will forever regret, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 13.42
1 Doyle is often described as being a "spiritualist" (see here for example), but that is an imprecise term. When used, do you mean those who believe in a spiritual world - virtually all theists and adherents to most religions; or do you mean those who practice communing with spirits - a practice filled with charlatans and forbidden in the Bible (Deut 18.9-11)? The imprecision has led to negative connotations due the many frauds of so called "spiritualists", and thus I prefer to avoid the term, and be more precise. In today's parlance, Doyle believed in a spiritual realm (as do believers in every major religion) and his beliefs included paranormal phenomena - such as fairies.
Phantoms, and Fantastic Photographs". Presenter:
Arthur C. Clarke. Narrator:
Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers.
ITV. 22 May 1985. No. 6, season 1
5 Michio Kaku, Parallel Universes, BBC Documentary, 2002
7. "Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart."
Eric Metaxas, Science Increasingly
Makes the Case for God, The Wall Street Journal, 12/25/2014
8 Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers, Great Britain: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2000 p. 4
9. Further examples in addition to Rees that scientists are promoting the idea of an infinite number of universes:
"And there are an infinite number of these
parallel universes. All of them slightly different."
"The latest understanding of the multiverse is there
could be an infinite number of universes - each with a different law of
"We actually think there's a gigantic number - perhaps
even an infinite number of level 1 universes."
10. Inflation: Wikipedia: The, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology), accessed 8/8/2015
12. Joe Lykken, Fermilab, referenced from The Universe episode Parallel Universes, documentary, 2008
14 Nathan Betts of Ravi Zacharias International
Ministries (RZIM) in a video short: