Should Christians believe in a multiverse? 7 Reasons Against

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2 Cor 4.2

Non-believers will likely consider the above scripture irrelevant and unpersuasive and will ponder the wisdom of starting an article on the multiverse with a verse of scripture. In so doing they will have confirmed the scripture (blind to spiritual truths) while setting up my two points: First – this is not merely a discussion of physics – but of metaphysics. (Metaphysics being those things that lie beyond the realm of observable physical reality and so strictly speaking, are beyond the realm of the questions that physics can answer.) Second, not only is the multiverse “pure metaphysics”[1] as Christian apologist William Lane Craig puts it, but many scientists seem blind to the fact that they are engaging in metaphysics – not physics – when proposing the multiverse as a “scientific” answer to a number of the problems their theories have. They have fallen into the same error that  philosopher of science and apologist John Lennox chides theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking for: engaging in metaphysics while failing to recognize he is doing so.[2]

Truth in advertising

Having identified multiverse theories as claims that deal with the metaphysical, we can make the following observations:

Observation regarding authority
Scientists defending materialist worldviews are quick to point out when non-scientists offer opinions on their scientific theories. For example, when Eric Metaxas wrote an article titled “Science increasingly makes the case for God,” as expected atheist scientists like Lawrence Krauss objected. “Eric Metaxas is not a scientist”[3] writes Krauss. This objection points out the modern obsession with qualified authorities. We’re always interested in what authorities have to say – when they’re speaking in their field of expertise. Typically, that is a good thing.  However, when they are not speaking in their field of expertise, yet want to be regarded as a qualified authority, that’s a problem. It’s a big enough problem to be recognized as a logical fallacy, called a (false) appeal to authority.  Here is where the identification of multiverses as metaphysics is important. In making claims of the existence of a multiverse, scientists are stepping beyond their field of expertise in physics or whatever science they’re qualified in, and into the realm of metaphysics. That being the case,  we can view those claims either as a) the claims of any average lay person with no specialized training in metaphysics or b) as the claims of a scientist making a false appeal to authority.  Either way – their claims immediately lose the luster of scientific respectability and are no more valid than any gossip heard on the street.

The more serious problem with claims about a multiverse is that such claims are presented as science. In this article, I will also be making claims about the multiverse. Some will be based on science – some will be based on philosophy and Christian revelation – which is beyond science and thus appropriately considered metaphysics.

What makes the philosophical arguments appropriate and valid is not that as a seminary graduate, I can more appropriately be considered an authority on such philosophical and spiritual matters. No rather, the appropriateness comes first from truth in advertising.  I’m telling you up front that some of the arguments I make will be philosophically/spiritually based. I’m not trying to masquerade them as science.  Second, the persuasiveness of the arguments is not based upon perceived authority, but rather on the clarity of the argument and how closely it corresponds to reality. (Some of you will recognize that last statement as a definition for “truth“.)

Recognizing that many theorists are passing off the multiverse as pure science, when it is pure metaphysics while using both science and  philosophy to justify their reasoning, it is appropriate to respond with answers that are part science, part philosophy. In so doing I will point out both the fallacious nature of arguments in favor of a “multiverse,”   as well as show how it is incompatible with a Christian worldview.  Consequently what follows are 7 such reasons why Christians should not believe in the multiverse.  Those who would object to the philosophical/metaphysical arguments should first bring their objections to the scientists who introduced the metaphysical claim of a “multiverse” as science.

Different Strokes for Different Folks,
Different Multiverses for Different Theories

As we begin our examination I should clarify that there is not a single type of multiverse, but 4 different types; and there is not a single reason that various scientists believe in these various types of multiverses. Thus there is not a single “theory of multiverses” rather various physicists and cosmologists are saying  the multiverse is a “side effect” of other theories and thus they can “infer” it’s there because it’s “a consequence of theories we believe.”[4] Some put it even stronger: “So with the multiverse the physics says very strongly, that these things are there. And for them not to be there something really weird would have to happen with the laws  of physics as we know them – they’d have to be quite different in a way that’s very implausible.”[5] 

I’m suggesting that what’s “very implausible” are some of the theories from which they derive these multiverses, and the flawed logic used to arrive at the conclusion that the answer to some of their problems is a multiverse. Since they arrive at these conclusions by different means, there will be a number of different reasons why none of the theories of the multiverse make sense.  As a reference to the multiverse in view as I point out the various errors, following is a brief description of the various types of multiverses physicists are claiming might exist.[6]

Different Types of Multiverses

Level 1. The Infinite Multiverse
An extension of our own universe (exists in the same dimensions)  – Based on the idea  that the universe is infinite in size.  One universe begins where the previous ends. Also known as the “patchwork” universe (depicted metaphorically above).  The claim for this multiverse is mathematically, odds are that patterns of atoms repeat in an infinite space – so there could be copies (and variations) of our own universe. Those copies include multiple copies of individual people like you and me living out different lives based on different outcomes to various choices and events.

Level 2. The Inflationary Multiverse
Cosmic Soap bubbles created by an inflationary area called hyperspace or “the bulk” with each bubble created being a universe that floats in hyperspace. The laws of physics may or may not be the same as the laws of physics in our universe. There are also an infinite number of bubbles, so the inflationary multiverse incorporates all the consequences of the Infinite multiverse.

Level 3. The Quantum physics “Many Worlds” Multiverse
The Many Worlds concept from quantum mechanics – Many universes separated by different dimensions. (Unlike level 1 and 2 which exist in the same dimensions.) The many worlds scenario posits an infinite number of these universes – where anything that can happen does happen –  in some parallel universe somewhere.

Level 4. The M theory Brane driven Multiverse
Created either by quantum fluctuations or membranes (“branes” in extra dimensional space)  clashing together to create the big bang (or multiple big bangs). The universes that are created will float in hyperspace and have different values for physical constants and different laws of physics so each universe will be radically different from our own – and from other universes. Alternately universes could be tethered to these branes via an umbilical cord like structure in hyperspace.

7 Reasons Why Christians should not believe in the multiverse

1. The Multiverse is based on a false account of Origins that cannot account for fine tuning
The Multiverse is yet another rescue device (the fallacy is known as an ad hoc rescue) for the not-conforming-to-empirical-evidence Big Bang theory. As scientists continue to make observations about the universe, they increasingly notice that the big bang cannot account for these observations. Normally in such cases the theory would be rejected in favor of a theory that better fits the evidence. But the big bang is a cherished theory and scientists don’t want to let it go. So rather than discard it, they have come up with a number of ad hoc rescue devices to save the cherished theory. 

Some of the problems with the big bang are:

The Horizon Problem
The Smoothness Problem
The speed of distant galaxies

The Horizon and Smoothness problems are related in that they both deal with the expected outcome of an explosion (which is not evident in the big bang – another problem), and scientist “solve” both problems with another rescue theory called inflation which we’ll look at next. The speed of distant galaxies problem is solved with another ad hoc solution called “dark matter”. I discuss the problems with that here.

These are just a few of the, many problems with the big bang[7], and now because of the observed fine tuning of the universe which cannot be explained by the big bang theory, scientists are reaching in desperation to another un-observable, un-provable, ad hoc rescue theory yet again. William Lane Craig sums it up well:

There’s no real reason to believe such parallel worlds exist. The very fact that skeptics have to come up with such an outlandish theory is because the fine-tuning of the universe points powerfully toward an intelligent designer and some people will hypothesize anything to avoid reaching that conclusion.”[8]
William Lane Craig

Indeed they will hypothesize anything. Their attempt to explain away fine tuning has created the Level 4 Multiverses – where somehow (they’re not sure how, but when in doubt invoke a quantum fluctuation) multiple universes are made, each with different physical characteristics. When you do that an infinite amount of times (as the theory states) you’re bound to come up with a universe with the physical characteristics that ours exhibits.

Again – they have no evidence of this theory. They only have a need to explain away fine tuning, and so Shazaam! We now have a multiverse that can explain away fine tuning.

2. The Multiverse is Based on Bad Science
As noted above Cosmic Inflation is used to solve a number of big bang problems. (For a description of Inflation, see here) most notably the Horizon problem and the smoothness problem. (For a description of these, see here.)  Here again we see a bad theory – the big bang – not conforming to observation. The WMAP picture of the early universe shows an extremely uniform universe – with temperatures that vary no more than 1/50,000 of a degree. No explosion works that way, and scientists cannot deny that, so once again they need a fix for the big bang. What’s the fix? Alan Guth’s story telling, otherwise known as the theory of Inflation. All of a sudden Shazaam! – the horizon problem goes away, the smoothness problem goes away and a few other pesky problems go away.

The problem is: fanciful story telling is not science – unless you can explain it with observable science. And scientist have no explanation for –

• Why Inflation started
• How it “reversed gravity” (twice)
• How it changed the magnitude of gravity
• Why it stopped
• Why it lasted for as long (or little) as it did
• What is the mechanism that makes it possible

With regard to the last item, in the quantum physics world, all forces are carried by particles. The electromagnetic force for instance is carried by the photon. Scientists have thus theorized there must be a particle that carries the “Inflation” force, so they are busy looking for such a particle, which they’ve named the “inflaton.” They’re searching for it, but have yet to find it.  Skeptics of Creation Science criticize it saying it makes no predictions. Here is a prediction: I am so certain that  the “inflationary period” of the big bang never happened, that I can confidently predict that scientists will never find an inflaton – a particle capable of doing what they claim happened during the inflationary period. Nor will they be able to prove it by observing such a particle doing what they claim it did in the big bang. (That caveat is necessary to prevent naming any old particle an “inflaton” – regardless of whether it can do what is claimed for the big bang inflationary period or not, and claiming they’ve found it.)

As scientists play with the idea of inflation, they’ve come up with the idea that inflation never stopped – thus “eternal inflation” which makes multiple universes thus creating both level 1 and level 2 type universes within the multiverse.

But there’s no reason to believe such an inflationary period ever existed. And until scientists come come up with a real “inflaton” particle that can reverse gravity, change its magnitude, and start and stop inflationary fields at precise intervals (without being directed of course) as claimed by the big bang theory, there is no reason to believe that Multiverses like the Level 2 type exist.

3. The Multiverse is based on fallacious reasoning
Level 3 Multiverses come from observations made by quantum physicists from which they used fallacious reasoning to come up with the implausible level 3 multiverse where there are many worlds and anything that can happen does happen – in some parallel world.

It started with the observation that particles, when sent through the familiar double slit experiment:

 …produced a very familiar pattern: the same pattern (called a diffraction pattern) made when waves are sent though the double slit:

Double slit diffraction pattern

The pattern is created by waves when going through the slits – they interfere with each other – re-enforcing each other creating the lighter bands; and  weakening each other creating the darker bands. This is understandable for a wave which can go through both slits at the same time, but how is it possible for a single particle, which presumably, must go through either one slit or the other? Here is the creative answer first proposed by Hugh Everett in the 1950’s.  Everett’s proposal – the particle actually does go through both slits – but it two separate universes. So the particle is actually in two places at once – in two separate universes. This is called the “many worlds” interpretation and surprisingly has been embraced by many modern physicists. I say surprisingly because the theory does not appear to explain the pattern. If the particle goes through both slits, but in two different universes, how is that we get the diffraction pattern in this universe from a single particle going through a single slit?

The theory itself is questionable, but more importantly, the conclusions drawn from it are clearly fallacious.  Consider the conclusion drawn by Parallel Worlds author and popular TV physicist Michio Kaku:

“If the universe at one point was actually smaller than an electron, if that’s true, and if electrons are described by being in many
places at the same time in parallel states, this means that the universe also exists in parallel states. You inevitably get parallel
universes. There’s no choice.”[9]
Michio Kaku

Or consider this tidbit of scientific wisdom based on the the “many worlds” theory:

“Every time I flip a coin – say heads or tails – that is some quantum accident, the universe is splitting into two worlds every time it comes up heads or tails. “

“So our experience of the splitting is like the experience of walking through a garden of paths that fork. When we come to a fork in the path, we take one path or the other, heads or tails. But both forks exist at the same time. We only experience one of them.

Every time I flip a coin, the universe splits into two worlds. …”[10]
Seth Lloyd

So because scientists believe at the quantum level particles can exist at multiple places at the same time, we are supposed to believe that at the macro level of the universe the same laws apply? Why should they? The laws of quantum physics are known to be incompatible with the law that govern large bodies like planets and suns – namely Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Thus the search for the TOE – the theory of everything that combines them all into one elegant theory (which Einstein searched for but was unable to discover) goes on. But with or without the theory of everything, one does not expect what happens at the quantum level to be true at the non-quantum level of large bodies like people, planets and stars.

And even if they find such a theory of everything, there is still a fundamental problem with their reasoning. You’ve probably already spotted it. It’s known as the fallacy of composition. Here is an example of the fallacy of composition:

The fallacy of composition:
Whales are made of individual cells.
Individual cells are tiny and almost weightless.
Therefore whales are also tiny and almost weightless.

Or consider this one:

Chlorine is a poisonous gas.
Therefore Sodium Chloride is also a poisonous gas.

Many will recognize sodium chloride as common salt – a non-poisonous solid (not gas).  It should be immediately apparent that just as whales are not tiny and almost weightless, and salt is not a poisonous gas, there is no reason to believe that the “many worlds” interpretation of what supposedly happens at the quantum level  is what happens at the level of people, planets and stars. In fact, we don’t even know if  it’s true at the quantum level – and I suspect it isn’t. But this application of a quantum explanation applied to non-quantum large bodies is precisely what physicists are saying happens to create multiverses. Read again what Kaku said. He is clearly saying because physicists believe it is true at the quantum level, it must also be true beyond the quantum level – the level of people, planets and stars. There is no evidence that such an interpretation (of “many worlds”) is true at the quantum level – much less the non-quantum level of people, places and stars.

Remember this started out as a way to explain the dual slit experiment for quantum particles. Aside from their story about universes being created when you flip a coin, roll the dice or choose a course of action, they have no evidence that a multiverse exists, or a “splitting” into multiple worlds takes place. There could be other dynamics at work to create the wave pattern from quantum particles. One scientist has suggested a wave particle duality. That may or may not be the case. But whatever the case, until they come up with some evidence to suggest the world is actually splitting into multiple worlds every time some choice is made somewhere, there is no reason (or evidence) to suggest that such an interpretation is valid at any level – quantum or otherwise.

4. The Multiverse theory suffers from a lack of a plausible origin

Like most if not all secular theories that try to explain the origin of life or the universe, eventually they run into a problem of origins, a problem of the first cause which they can’t answer.  We see this in evolution: What is the origin of the first life? What is the origin of the information in DNA? We see this in the big bang: What is the origin of the singularity? What is the origin of the first star? And now we see the same problem with the multiverse theory: What is the origin of the multiverse? For secular scientists, most of these questions have no answer. Where they do provide an answer they are clearly an ad hoq, made up story to rescue the theory. For example, to answer the questions secular scientists will tell  you:

What is the origin of the first life? – They don’t know
What is the origin of the information in DNA? Aliens from outer space.
What is the origin of the Singularity? Extra-dimensional ‘Branes’ crashing together
What is the origin of the first star? A process involving the hypothetical Dark Matter
What is the origin of the Multiverse?  For this, metaphors are used to make the explanations understandable. The metaphors include a universe generating machine that turns out universes with different settings (the point being to account for the fine tuning of the universe); and Cosmic inflation as a genie who once started, can’t stop producing universes.[11] I have already pointed out the problem with the inflationary scenario. Jay Richards, comments on the  “generator” metaphor,  pointing out the problem with it:

“It’s an interesting idea. There’s just one problem with it.
There’s no independent evidence that it’s true.
Besides it really just pushes the question back a step, because we could still ask, who built the generator?”[12]
Jay Richards

That question can, of course, be applied to all of the “answers” above (where answers are given): What is the origin of the aliens who supposedly supplied the information for DNA? What is the origin of the ‘branes’ that supposedly caused the singularity? What is the origin of Dark Matter? (The singularity is no answer – since there is no answer to where the singularity came from.)

All these theories fall to the same question – what is it’s origin? Skeptics of course like to turn the question around and ask, who created God? What is his origin?  But that’s a nonsense question similar to asking how do you make a square circle? That is a contradiction in terms. So is asking who created God, because God is an eternal being without beginning, and thus without a creator. That’s why His name is I AM (Ex 3.14) – he has always been. That’s why the psalm says “from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” (Ps 90.2) He is without beginning and without end. That’s why the Kalam Cosmological argument is so powerful. The first premise being, “Whatever begins to exist has a creator.”  God never “began” to exist so he has no creator. On the other hand believers in the Big Bang and it’s spin offs – like the Multiverse – believe they began to exist. Thus they must have creator. Yet scientists can’t tell you ultimately, who or what that creator is.  This makes level 2, 3, and 4 multiverses impossible.  Even their ad hoq rescues fail them in this matter.

5. Mathematics alone cannot account for a multiverse

The level 1 multiverse is a mathematical argument. It assumes the universe is infinite. If that is true, and the universe consists merely of patterns of atoms and molecules, surely (as the theory goes) given an infinite combination of atoms and molecules, you will have repeating patterns. And thus, they suppose, our world would be duplicated somewhere in an infinite universe.

The problem with a strictly mathematical argument is that math does not necessarily have to describe reality as any gamer will tell you.  If you’ve played video games, you have likely come across games where the laws of physics are simulated – but do not precisely mirror real physics. For instance, you can crash cars at 200 mph, and have them suffer no damage. Or have normal people jump 20 to 50 feet in the air unassisted in normal earth gravity. All these things can be described by math. That does not mean that the description they paint is an accurate picture of reality.

One thing scientists fail to consider in their mathematical “roll of the dice” model is that the patterns of molecules don’t just happen as the dice metaphor suggests. (Stating that it does is an example of the fallacy of false analogy) Such combinations must come about – in their theory – by undirected, unguided, blind forces.  That being the case they run into the problem that blind forces cannot create every pattern. One obvious example are the very complex structures of life, which are, as Michael Behe puts it irreducibly complex. This means that random forces cannot create them. That means even in an infinitely large universe with infinite possibilities, they would not exist. Let’s consider first Behe’s claim:

“My claim is that there is no unintelligent process that could produce the bacterial flagellum. To falsify that claim, all you would have do would be to find one unintelligent process that could produce that system. “[13]
Michael Behe

The bacterial flagellum is just one of many irreducibly complex systems. Between biological systems and other physical processes there must be a high number of irreducibly complex systems. I don’t know the number so let’s be generous, and just pick a number for illustration. Scientists tells us there are 10⁸⁰  atoms in the universe[14], so let’s say there are 10⁴⁰  ways that those atoms have been arranged in an irreducibly complex way. That’s trillions upon trillions upon trillions. So for our example there are 10⁴⁰  items that cannot be produced by random processes.

Now let’s consider: We have an infinite universe, of which 10⁴⁰ number of processes cannot be replicated anywhere in the universe.  How much does that reduce the size of the universe? That’s a trick question. There’s no need to calculate how many processes exist per universe. The answer is the size is not reduced at all, because the universe is infinite. So whether the processes are all in one universe, or the processes are scattered among 10⁴⁰ universes, it doesn’t matter, because the size of an infinite universe would stay the same.  Infinity minus any finite number is still infinity. If you doubt that, check out the paradox of Hilbert’s Hotel.

The point: There is some finite number of things that cannot be created by natural processes. And so even in an infinite universe – such things do not exist – except where intentionally created by an intelligent designer: on earth by the creator. So even in an infinitely large universe – that does not imply or guarantee that all combinations of matter and chemicals that exist here in our universe will be replicated elsewhere in the universe.

That’s one reason the level 1 universe fails. Following is another.

6. The Multiverse is contrary to a Christian worldview

Universes in Level 1 and Level 3 multiverses are often depicted as a world similar to ours but either very distant from us (in the infinite Level 1 universe) or in another dimension (in the many worlds Level 3 universe). But within these universes according to the theories, there are copies of us – doing the range of possibilities that never happened here. Alan Guth, creator of the theory of inflation, puts it this way:

“Essentially anything that can happen, does happen in one of the alternatives. Which means that superimposed on top of the universe that we know of, is an alternative universe where Al Gore is president and Elvis Presley is still alive.”[15]
Alan Guth

Multiverse theorists like to put a positive spin on things, so they are fond of pointing out benign things that may have happened. What they neglect to mention among the “anything that can happen, does happen” realm of possibilities, is all the evil that could come about.  Instead of being a law abiding citizen, in a parallel universe, you and I could be mass murderers along the order of Hitler. This raises a number of thorny theological questions.

• Is  your parallel worlds doppelganger somehow a part of you, or is it just matter arranged to look like you?
• If the doppelganger is somehow part of you, are you responsible for all the evil it does? Or if it does good, while you’re evil, will you get the rewards of your doppelganger?
• Could doppelgangers in parallel universes who do evil (sin) be saved? (Do they have a soul that can be saved?)

I’m sure you can think or many more questions along this line that secular scientist who believe in multiverse theory either didn’t think of, or more likely don’t care about – since they don’t believe in the existence of spiritual things like “the soul” anyway. But we can quickly demonstrate that the idea of people in multiple universes is false one – according to a Christian world view. We’ll use the same approach the Apostle Paul used in Gal 3.16 to demonstrate that the prophecy in Gen 3.15 referred not to many people, but to one person, namely Christ.

Consider first Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God from maximal greatness. If you’ve not heard of it, you can see a brief video that describes it here. A simplified version follows:

Premise 1. God is the maximum being in every aspect. He’s maximally great in knowledge, power, perfection, existence, etc.

Premise 2. To be maximally great, he would have to exist not just in the mind, but in all possible worlds.

Observation: The world we live in is a possible world.

Conclusion: God must exist in this possible world.

Anselm’s goal was to prove God’s existence – which I believe he does. If you understand the concept of “God” and believe it’s possible for God to exist, then you understand he must exist.

Now consider premise 2 above: God would have to be maximally great in every possible world. That would include all the worlds of the multiverse. Which means that God would have to judge all the sins done in all the multiverses everywhere. (A maximally good God could not let sin go unpunished.)  Yet God intends to save the creatures “made in his image.”  How did he do that? Cue the most famous verse in the Bible:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3.16

Scripture says “God so loved the world“. The word in the Greek for “world” is  Κοσμος (Kosmos), from which we get cosmos. Here’s the argument from the Apostle Paul: Paul saw significance in, and made a distinction between “seed” and “seeds.” Likewise the word here is singular – God so loved the “world” not “worlds.”

If Christ died for people in other worlds, why does it not say, “God so loved the worlds” (plural)? Apparently Christ died only for people in this world. Additionally the power of the resurrection message is the eyewitness testimony to it (1 Cor 15.5-8). But scripture is clear: Christ died once for all (1 Pe 3.18) and that death was here on this planet earth. Since Christ died only on this planet, there are no eye witnesses on other planets, and thus no testimony to preach on other worlds. Therefore they remain dead in their sins, unable to call upon the only one that could save them since they would never know about him and his sacrifice – which he only made on this earth.

I suggest the entire multiverse scenario is inconsistent with the God who loves this particular world that he alone created.  The reason he died once for all only in this world, is because this is the only world where living creatures exist, and in particular, it’s the only physical world where creatures made in his image exist.

7. The Multiverse nullifies God’s Wonders and Purpose

Scripture is clear that God uses wonders in the heavens to draw people to himself:

I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.  And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved;
Joel 2.30-32a

But if there is a level 4 multiverse, that suggests:

• The wondrous fine tuning of our universe was a fortuitous accident
• The “wonders in the heavens and on the earth” are not wonders at all, they are mere accidents of cosmic forces
• Indeed (as secular scientists like to claim) God’s miracles aren’t that miraculous, they can all be explained away by natural causes

I suggest the above is not only not true, but it stands in direct contradiction to what God claims about his works and his words: That they are meaningful and intentional, and most importantly – done by him to achieve his purposes.  One of his purposes is to inspire awe and wonder, that we might appreciate his greatness and be drawn to him.  In contrast the multiverse does just the opposite, making everything a random accident. It thus becomes clear what the true purpose of multiverse theories are: to make God and everything about him unnecessary and irrelevant.

Conclusion

We’ve seen that multiverse theories are both bad science and even worse theology. Some scientists claim there is evidence for the multiverse[16], but until they can rule out other causes for such evidence it remains as mere speculation. Additionally, as is normally the case, for theories to be science, they must be testable. As physicist Alex Filippenko notes regarding whether science could prove the existence of God:

Ultimately the point is, if there is no way to scientifically test a hypothesis through experiments and observation, it’s not truly a scientific hypothesis. And so since the question of the ultimate origin and the ultimate creator is fundamentally an untestable question, it’s really not part of science.”[17]
Alex Filippenko

The same is true of the multiverse. Until they can come up with a way to test any of the theories of the multiverse – it remains outside of the realm of science, squarely in the realm of metaphysics. And as long as scientists are dabbling outside of their realm of expertise and into the metaphysical, they should make clear they are doing so and stop calling theories of the multiverse science, and call it what it is: An addition to their secular religion. A religion supported by the twin clay pillars of the big bang and Darwinian evolution, to which they now want to add the multiverse.

Duane Caldwell | posted 9/5 /2016 | printer friendly version
Follow @duanecaldwell

Related article: The Multiverse and Other Fairy Tales

Notes  

1. William Lane Craig, referenced from Lee Strobel The Case for a Creator, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004 p. 140
back

2. John C. Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking – Whose Design is it Anyway?, Oxford, England: Lion Hudson, 2011 p. 21
back

3. Lawrence M. Krauss, No, Astrobiology Has Not Made the Case for God Jan 24, 2015, http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/astrobiology-made-case-god
back

4. Anthony Aguirre, Univ of CA, Santa Cruz ref from Space’s Deepest Secrets  episode “The Truth behind Parallel Universes”, Science Channel Documentary, 2014
(Also aired as Which Universe are we In?)
back

5. Seth Lloyd, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ref from ref from Space’s Deepest secrets
back

6. Reference: The Universe episode “Parallel Universes”, Documentary, (History Television), 2008
back

7. For a list of many of the problems with the Big Bang and a brief description, see
Big Bang or Big Fizzle: DOA-RIP, Creation Studies Institute, accessed 9/3/16 http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/big_bang.html
Or The Failed Predictions of the Big Bang – Bob Enyart, The Creation Club, 2/13/2016,
http://thecreationclub.com/the-failed-predictions-of-the-big-bang-bob-enyart/
back

8. Craig, ref from Strobel The Case for a Creator, p. p140
back

9. Michio Kaku ref from The Universe episode “Parallel Universe”, science documentary, 2008
back

10. Seth Lloyd ref from Space’s Deepest secrets
back

11. Inflation as a cosmic genie – Anthony Aguirre, Space’s Deepest Secrets
back

12. Jay Richards, ref. from Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, Documentary ( Illustra Media DVD), 2006
back

13. Michael Behe, ref from  Strobel The Case for a Creator, p. 214
back

14. According to Max Tegmark, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ref from Space’s Deepest secrets
back

15. Alan Guth, ref. from Parallel Universes, BBC documentary, 2002
back

16. Laura Mersini-Houghton, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says evidence of “Cross talk” between multiple universes should be observable as dark spots in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and claims this has been observed.
ref from Space’s Deepest secrets
back

17. Alex Filippenko,  Univ of California, Berkeley, ref. from The Universe episode “God and the universe”, Documentary, 2011
back

Featured image: The Patchwork Multiverse – © Duane Caldwell – individual images – public domain Hubble photos

Double slit experiment:
By Jasper Olbrich (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Double slit particle diffraction pattern
By No machine-readable author provided. NekoJaNekoJa~commonswiki assumed (based on copyright claims), via Wikimedia Commons