≡ Menu

God of the Multiverse

Stephen Hawking recently appeared at nearby Pasadena California Institute of Technology where he laid out the case for a Big Bang without God. Hawking himself has admitted,

“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

multiverse-1bWhich is why atheists have gone to great pains to extol a god-less Big Bang. Sure, there was a beginning, they concede. It just began on its own.

One reason atheists require an ancient earth is because of the time needed for complex life forms to develop. In their book Evolution from Space, astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that the odds of randomly producing the required enzymes for a simple living cell were 1 in 1040,000. In the known universe, the number of atoms is only 1080. Thus, Hoyle compares the random emergence of the simplest cell (much less an entire universe with advanced life forms!) to the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

Since the mathematical odds are against them, scientists appear to be taking an even greater leap of faith. Now, instead of needing more time, materialists are entertaining more possible universes. Enter Hawking:

He closed [his lecture] by outlining “M-theory,” which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence. (emphasis mine)

In short, M-theory hypothesizes that many possible universes comprise reality. So rather than living in a uni(one)-verse, we live in a multi(many)-verse, entire worlds with independent histories, laws and possibilities.

Multiverse theory inevitably challenges traditional theology and, in fact, may be employed to do so. If multiple universes do exist, our notions about God, Christ, the creation event, and morality are all rather skewed. For instance, If there are multiple universes, then the Genesis event spoken of in Scripture is not all that unique. A billion possible Genesis-es may have occurred! Furthermore, Did Christ die for the sins of all possible worlds, or just this one? Or is he simply an inter-dimensional interloper? And do the laws of morality embrace all possible worlds, or are they specific just to our own? Then again, maybe traditional morality needs to stretch its legs outside of this dimension.

In The Multiverse Problem, Seed magazine suggests that the growing popularity of multiverse theory among scientists may be an intentional ploy to undermine traditional theism.

In a 2005 New York Times op-ed, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, accused scientists of concocting the idea of a multiverse specifically “to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” Since then, a handful of other prominent Christian thinkers have also argued that multiverse theory is motivated by a refusal to accept evidence of god’s handiwork in the cosmos. Evangelical philosopher and Discovery Institute fellow William Lane Craig has called the idea an act of “desperation” on the part of atheist scientists. And Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary, an ally of the intelligent design movement who is writing a book about cosmology, also asserts that “religious or anti-religious motives dominate the discussion” among scientists developing multiverse models. (emphasis mine)

One would only hope that the scientific community does not put forth theories driven entirely upon a need to refute theism. In Atheism and the Universe, CARM suggests it may be our nagging impulse to christen something — anything — as… god:

Scientifically speaking, no evidence has ever been provided for a multiverse. In fact, there has been no model that has supplied any evidence showing any reality that extends into the infinite past. But, surprisingly, many atheists and philosophical naturalists have hailed the multiverse almost as something like a god – describing its beauty, power, etc., with absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever existed. It is a strange stance to be sure for those who constantly criticize believers in God for having ‘faith’ in something that (supposedly) has no proof for its existence. (emphasis mine)

Even if there are multiple universes, they must have had a beginning. But this is the conclusion that atheistic scientists are struggling to explain. So instead of throwing “time” at the problem (as the evolutionist did), today’s scientist throws “more possible dimensions” at the cosmological question. If longer time won’t suffice, maybe more possible worlds will help. Yet if  “multiple universes are created out of nothing,” as Hawking suggests, one simply need ask… how? I mean, isn’t this upping the odds? Having nuclei spring from the Void (the Void being something, however) is far more plausible than, say, a myriad of worlds for an infinity of nuclei to spontaneously generate.

Frankly, it seems like the multiverse theory is being used by atheists and materialists as a way of dodging the real questions.

So once again, we meet Chesterton’s maxim: When a man rejects God, he doesn’t believe in nothing, he believes in anything. In this case, the nothing that atheists worship is The Great Nothing from which, apparently, emerged Multiple Somethings. Amen.

{ 16 comments… add one }
  • Lyn Perry April 28, 2013, 5:43 PM

    Heard it was David Hume’s birthday last week on NPR. Started my day with this encouraging quote: “The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.” Today, he’d say multiverse. But the result is the same for the atheist.

  • Julian Walker April 28, 2013, 8:00 PM

    I think the idea of a multiverse would be very interesting…..I don’t shun the idea but I don’t adhere to it wholeheartedly either. If that is the case then, would we as human be able to interact with multiple species once we are in heaven?

    • Mike Duran April 29, 2013, 6:17 AM

      Julian, I’ve always believed the idea of parallel dimensions is quite biblical. It’s the idea of “multiple Mikes” that I have a problem with. While I can concede other worlds, I think the notion that those worlds might contain the outworking of numerous possible outcomes flatly contradicts what God has revealed about our universe and the importance of choosing life over death.

  • R. L. Copple April 28, 2013, 11:04 PM

    But I wonder what the odds are for multiple universes to spring from nothing, much less one. Forget about biological life, the careful balance of atoms that allows for the existence of a universe itself, much less one capable of sustaining life, and it happening, is huge odds. To posit that billions of such universes sprang up would be astronomical odds as well. Have they traded in the pot for the fire?

  • Katherine Coble April 29, 2013, 8:01 AM

    Eh. The Multiverse theory poses absolutely no philosophical conflict with theism to me.

    God is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

    The first commandment is “I AM the Lord your God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”

    When asked by Moses to identify himself God simply says I AM.

    All of these are God telling us that God exists beyond our scope and outside of time. Our dimensional reality is a condition of our fallen state.

    Science can keep dreaming up multiple universes, and God will still be bigger than all of them.

    As far as there being “multiple Mikes”, there likely are. When God gave us free will that created a near-infinite number of paths, one for each choice we make. But since God exists outside of time and beyond our dimensions that isn’t a problem. G

  • Jill April 29, 2013, 1:50 PM

    I’m pretty sure the universe is like a fractal. And that thought necessarily forces me in the direction of God for relief of the neverending intricacy.

  • Bob Avey April 30, 2013, 5:43 AM

    The notion of the universe just popping into existence on its own is preposterous enough, but now the atheists have multiple universes popping out of nowhere. This is so ridiculous. No matter what theory the atheists put forth, they always had the problem of infinity to deal with. So now they’re saying creation created itself. Good one atheists. That’s the lamest attempt at dodging infinity I’ve ever heard.

  • Lyn Perry April 30, 2013, 7:09 AM

    I’ve been hearing about parallel universes since the early Star Trek days and the only benefit to the theory that makes sense to me is that Vulcans have goatees. 😉

  • Melissa Ortega April 30, 2013, 12:54 PM

    Good article!

    Multiverse theory, while amusing in film, rings incredibly hollow when asked to prove itself. I think it will fall flat on its face in a decade or two and theorists will laugh at themselves for ever having considered it. For one thing, its hinge is human perception (paths and all that), and most of that is delusional. We don’t have more than one future – multiple trajectories perhaps – but only one “actual” event occurs.

    Let’s just say I would love it if G.K.Chesterton were still around to respond to this particular theory, because all I can think of is Orthodoxy’s “Maniac and The Suicide of Thought.”

  • Mark H. May 1, 2013, 8:40 AM

    Good post, Mike. In the end, every theory for the beginning of the world comes back to one point: getting something from nothing. Without God, I don’t see how that can ever be explained.

  • Matthew Jenkinson May 6, 2013, 10:55 AM

    I think it’s important to point out that you appear to have the cause of the multiverse hypothesis ass-backwards.
    The origin of the multiverse hypothesis arises from attempts to explain those things we CAN observe, those attempts being String and M theory. In attempting to create a theory of everything, certain empirical evidence combined with mathematical models seems to suggest that there MUST be a multiverse, if the rest of the theory is to stand up.
    An example of what I mean follows. Originally, the Theory of General Relativity was looked at unfavourably until a prediction that it had made – that the massive gravity of the sun must cause light to bend around it, which was nonsensical at the time – was observed to be true. It took 12 years to make that observation, due to several failed attempts because of inferior equipment, conditions, and in one case, the onset of WW1. Only once the observations where eventually made did it become widely accepted.
    In the same way, they are looking for evidence of a multiverse in an attempt to see whether the predictions of our current theory of everything stand up, or not. We may not find any, or we may find it – OR, and this is where it gets really exciting, we may find evidence that contradicts it but hints at something else. This further evidence, either way, will increase our understanding of the universe.

  • Matthew Jenkinson May 6, 2013, 11:09 AM

    @Bob Avey
    “The notion of the universe just popping into existence on its own is preposterous enough”
    Oh, but a God just popping into existence is not? Or is he eternal, and just always existed? On what grounds do you assume that the universe could not have the same eternal property?
    God-of-the-gaps indeed.

  • Jonathan May 8, 2013, 3:10 AM

    Might a billion possible Gensis events occur? Why not? Did Christ die for the sins of all worlds or just this one? Even easier to answer because Jesus himself gave us the parable of the lost sheep. C.S. Lewis described it so perfectly (I think it was in The Discarded Image), Christ went after the one lost sheep and left the 99 alone. If our universe was the lost sheep and he came to die for us it could be because he didn’t have to die for the others.

  • rdsouthdotinfo September 7, 2013, 1:23 PM

    God is a process that emerges from the dynamics of the multiverse, a sort of
    evolution of worlds. It is an anti-entropic force simultaneously of infinite power and infinite ambition. Creating infinite worlds is a difficult task. Like a man straining at the limit of his strength, It is jealous of every inefficiency, thus it created Man–by the efficient though slow process of evolution, rather than by fiat. It creates Man, or other beings similar to itself in having intellects, for the purpose of efficiently effecting It’s will in each universe. It lightly touches the flow of our history, nudging it in the desired direction.

Leave a Reply