'Multiverse' Theory Fails to Explain Away God


New discoveries continue to reveal the life-friendly properties of our universe, in which physical laws are seemingly fine-tuned to allow life to exist. To get around the appearance of design, secular scientists have to invent naturalistic explanations that exclude the possibility of supernatural origins. The latest of these inventions is “multiverses.”

The force of gravity, the specific masses of subatomic particles, the exact strengths of fundamental physical forces, and the distance of the earth from other galaxies and from the sun are all essential for the delicate balance needed to sustain life. Bernard Carr, cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London, told Discover, “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”1

The multiverse hypothesis holds that our entire universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes. In this way, all conceivable fundamental construction parameters could exist in a vast array of alternate realities. Most of these imaginary universes would not have the right conditions for life to exist, but by a cosmic coincidence, all the life-friendly forces of our universe happened to line up correctly.

There is no evidence for the existence of alternate universes, and if a concept cannot be proved or disproved, it is not open to scientific investigation. Stanford University visionary physicist Andrei Linde seemed adamant, however, that though this theory is not scientific, it must be true because it is logically necessary. When asked whether physicists will ever be able to prove the multiverse in the absence of any hope for physical confirmation, he told Discover, “Nothing else fits the data.”

What data? Even tiny variations in planetary distances, any more or less gravity, or any other difference in the current structure of the universe would make it hostile to life. The one model that explains this data without inventing fictional, unprovable multiverses is the creation model, which presents the planned, purposeful origin of space, time, matter, and life by a Creator. The only “data” that would seem to require multiverses is the absence of God—but this is not data, it is “science falsely so called,”2 empty imaginings devoid of evidentiary support.

When atheistic bias is removed, the old teleological argument still holds: Precise specification of fundamental parameters implies a precisely-minded “specifier.” University of Texas theoretical physicist Stephen Weinberg told Discover, “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator. What it does is remove one of the arguments for it.” But it does not do that. Rather, the multiverse hypothesis is a conclusion based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Whereas there may be spiritual reasons to reject the Creator, there is not a scientific or logical one.3

References

  1. Folger, T. Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory. Discover online. Posted on discovermagazine.com November 10, 2008, accessed November 26, 2008.
  2. 1 Timothy 6:20: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”
  3. John 3:20: “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

Image Credit:  NASA, ESA, and J. Maíz Apellániz (Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, Spain)

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.

Article posted on December 3, 2008.