Multiverse thinking: though magical doesn’t exclude God’s existence – it proves it

The multiverse – a product of magical thinking.

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:

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” [physicist Andrei] Linde says.

Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea.  …


Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse.[1]

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:

“Three lines of reasoning were now all pointing to the same conclusion. Eternal inflation, dark energy, and string theory.

These three ideas taken together support the idea that we may live in a multiverse.

When different lines of research all converge on one idea, that doesn’t mean it’s right, but when all the spokes of the wheel are pointing at one idea, that idea becomes pretty convincing.”[2]

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.[3]

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:

“I don’t find that satisfactory. You can apply this kind of reasoning any time you don’t have a better explanation.”[4]

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 :

  • There is some mechanism to turn out an infinite number of universes
  • The values for various physical constants in the laws of physics will vary from universe to universe
  • That in an infinite universe, every possible combination of particles will happen – multiple times, so not only would our earth be created; but  multiple earths with slight various would also be created
  • The big bang is true, the universe is cyclical[5], and thus given enough time such multiple earths would be created among the multiple universes.

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:

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

Some of you will recognize this as the first proposition of the Ontological argument for the existence of God[6]. And remember, we are not making 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.[7] God is maximally great in every universe, and because of his nature he necessarily exists in each universe.[8]

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[9], 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:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” [10]

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 | printer friendly version

This is the fifth article in the Big Bang Magic Series.  The others:
 The Expanding Big Bang Fairy Tale
 Pulling Back the Veil – What Cosmologists are Hiding
 More Big Bang Magic Tricks – Shadows and Waves
 Exposing the Big Magic Behind the Big Bang


1  Tim Folger, “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: The Multiverse Theory”,, November 10, 2008,

2. Brian Greene, ref. from “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?” Nova documentary, 2011

3. Inflation is needed to prop up the Big Bang theory.
– Eternal Inflation is a conclusion from the math describing cosmic inflation. And as I’ve pointed out many times, cosmic inflation itself is impossible, so any theories derived from it are necessarily incorrect.
– String theory has never gotten past the theoretical stage. It’s requirement of 10 spatial dimensions being a particular difficulty, with the explanation of “curled up” invisible dimensions being unpersuasive.
– Dark energy is a conclusion of the interpretation of red shift seen in galaxies, but astronomer Halton Arp argued that scientists have fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied that red shift. (See Age of the Universe: 13.75 Billion years – Fact or Faith statement)

4. David Gross, ref. from “The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse?” Nova documentary, 2011

5. Current Big Bang theory holds that the universe is cyclical, based on the properties of dark energy and quantum fluctuations. In his TED talk physicist Sean Carrol states that the universe cycles in 10 raised to the 10 raised to 120 power years.
Sean Carroll, “Distant Time and the hint of a multiverse” TED talk, 2011, at Caltech

6. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God can be formulated as 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.

For a short video on the Ontological argument produced by William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith organization, see here.

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 circle.

8. That God naturally and necessarily exists is reflected in his name, “I Am” (Ex 3.14)

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

10.  Robert Jastrow from God and the Astronomers, ref from Good Reads


All images – used by permission from the license holders as noted below

Multiverse magic – composite by Duane Caldwell, 2017
Multiverse Theory  © GiroScience | Fotolia (used by permission)

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Francis Arduini
Francis Arduini
6 years ago

The reason the Ontological Argument for God fails (at least for anyone trying to establish the existence of the Judeao-Christo-Islamic version of God) is because it uses a relative rather than criterion for defining His character. Just look at Premise 1: “Premise 1. God is the maximum being in every aspect. He’s maximally great in knowledge, power, perfection, existence, etc.” But what does “maximum” or “maximal” mean? As an adjective the definition is “as great, high, or intense as possible or permitted.” As a noun the definition is “the greatest or highest amount possible or attained.” Both definitions are bounded… Read more »