Thursday, October 5, 2017



The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the Multiverse as

a theoretical reality that includes a possibly infinite number of parallel universes

I don't know about you, but upon reading that definition I can't help but hear Rhett singing "A bunch of parallel me's stretching to infinity"[1]

There are people who flock to the Multiverse hypothesis, favoring it over Theism, treating it like it's an alternative.

Dr. William Lane Craig points out to the contrary,

the existence of a multiverse is not inconsistent with theism. God could have created a multiverse if he wanted to. Indeed, I think we’ll see that the best hope of those who want to believe in the multiverse is theism. The best bet for thinking that a multiverse exists is if God exists.[2]

Now, this is where it gets interesting. If you will for a moment follow the thought process. What if the idea you want to use to render God obsolete is actually made stronger by affirming that He does exist? You'd be in a pickle like Rick wouldn't ya?

Of course I can claim that it makes it stronger all day, but until I provide some reasoning, you will rightfully ignore me. Well, ignore no longer!

Cosmological Argument 

Now, apologists have been trying to put their own spin on this argument for a long time, but I'm going to focus on 2 versions that are relevant here. First, the Thomistic cosmological argument states:

  1. What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
  2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
  3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes


For a majority of known human history, scientists and philosophers, even the greats like Aristotle, believed that the universe was eternal. However, developments in science has seemed to prove otherwise. Dr. William Lane Craig recalling the history of these key moments states: 
 Einstein found that the General theory would not permit an eternal, static model of the universe unless he fudged the equations in order to offset the gravitational effect of matter. As a result, Einstein’s universe was balanced on a razor’s edge, and the least perturbation—even the transport of matter from one part of the universe to another—would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein’s model seriously, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and the Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to his equations which predicted an expanding universe...In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that the light from distant galaxies is systematically shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This red-shift was taken to be a Doppler effect indicating that the light sources were receding in the line of sight. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaître on the basis of Einstein’s General theory. It was a veritable turning point in the history of science. [3]

If we acknowledge the Big Bang creating the Multiverse, the Thomistic cosmological argument would still stand. As well as the Kalam Cosmological argument which states: 
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Going back to Craig's point, our arguments for God's existence aren't hindered by the Multiverse. It does not prevent anyone from being a theist even if we accept it as fact.

To sum the cosmological portion, Vilenkin states:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning[4]

Teleological Argument 

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Without getting too technical, the probability of design seems to widen the more complex something is. This is not necessarily so, of course, but acknowledging the multiverse is merely adding more complexity to a world where you do not have a first cause.

Christian Apologist Richard Bushey states: 

The multiverse says that there is an infinite number of universes, and an infinite number of chances, and therefore, even things that are vastly improbable do occur in some universes. We just happen to be the one in which it occurs...appealing to the multiverse to explain things just makes it impossible to assess probability and evaluate evidence rationally. Of course, that does not make it untrue. But it is irrational to throw out a random explanatory hypothesis. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes. So what? It is really just a glorified, “what if…” scenario. This seems to me to just be a desperate attempt to undermine the obvious design in the universe, and atheists would do it no matter what. If the clouds randomly formed the sentence, “The Bible is the word of God,” atheists would say that it was a product of the multiverse.[5]

 And since the Multiverse merely increases the chances of improbable propositions, the proposition "God exists" becomes more probable if the multiverse hypothesis is true.






[1] "I am a Thoughtful Guy" by Rhett & Link

[2] Dr. William Lane Craig article at Reasonable Faith "Has the Multiverse replaced God?"

[3] ibid.

[4] Many Worlds in One by Alex Vilenkin p. 176

[5] Richard Bushey of ThereforeGodExists.com (article titled: Does the Multiverse disprove God?"

Post a Comment: