It is my own personal belief that the term “Multiverse” (as we generally interpret as multiple Universes throughout space) is and has always been a product of God’s Great Creation—an existence that may have been here forever and may well continue to exist and expand throughout eternity.No,we have no firm scientific proof of a Multiverse (yet), but for those of you who believe in an Almighty,Loving and Everlasting God as I do,consider the following reasons for my conviction…[1] Since God has existed for an eternity,would he not have done so much more before us? [2] In a Catholic(my denomination) prayer called “The Nicene Creed” it starts out with: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and “invisible”—which is a key factor to be considered.[3] In considering the Lord’s wonderful and vast Creation here on Earth,we are a part of an immense,diverse selection of creatures,plants,minerals,organisms and liquid components so numerous that we can’t keep an accurate tally yet—with still always more ahead to discover.This very fact,(if I may) could perhaps give some hint of God’s plan going further out of are own Solar System—Has the Lord patterned a diverse system of life for a Multiverse as he did for the kind of wide range of diverse and numerous entities of creation as he has here on Earth?Besides,do we (the Human Race) really think that we had to be the first and final Intelligent Beings of Creation by a Loving,Almighty and Eternal God? I don’t think we have to be.Why would we have to be while being (our Earth) but a speck of sand on the greatest beach (the Cosmos) that you’ve ever seen? I humbly submit that without empirical scientific evidence supporting the existence of a Multiverse,the fore-mentioned reasons to me are some significant factors to be considered.
Hi, Kenneth, and welcome to the forum!
One doesn’t often hear the multiverse lauded as a psalmist’s praise - maybe because it’s still quite speculative. Still, though, why shouldn’t God be praised even for imaginative possibilities? I think we’ve faced this (principle of mediocrity) enough times through history to give us good grounding for the very preparatory-style insights you express. Our galaxy used to be considered “the universe” - until they discovered that all those “little” nebula were other entire galaxies like our own! So in a way, we’ve already been through the discovery of “parallel” universes. And those are ones we can even see!
Thanks for your thoughts.
Right Mervin_Bitikofer so true!—and based on the history of worldwide scientific discoveries by mankind,we can see the steady advancement toward and manifestation of possibilities for those things which used to seem impossible or unlikely more and more.That just might mean that nothing is impossible! I just hope that we as a Human Species can keep an open mind to those things important in defining who we are,where we came from,and our purpose here on God’s Green Earth.Thanks for your response!
Hi @quavis!
Have you read this essay written by physicist and Christian Don Page? He’s one of the world leading theorists in gravitational physics and Cosmology:
Does God so love the multiverse?
Hello Mathew Pevarnik!That is an interesting article and enlightening as well.While I do believe in intelligent design as a principle of God’s Creation I also believe that evolution certainly has its place—for example that whales began as land roaming animals with legs that found more food on the shores of the oceans and throughout millions of years came closer to the water to eat and consequently became ocean-dwelling creatures that still have to breath oxygen like we do.Out of the big picture,Darwin theories can’t be denied.As for man starting out as Apes goes,I tend to accept that God made Humans as superior creatures to transcend all other living creatures as the Bible states.But that in the beginning we may have been an ape-form with brains that were made to advance to separate us from all other living creatures.That’s of course my own theory on the possible origin of us Humans.Thanks for your response!
“Today there is the growing idea that the fine-tuned constants of physics might be explained by a multiverse with very many different sets of constants of physics. Some Christians oppose the multiverse for similarly undercutting other design arguments for the existence of God. However, undercutting one argument does not disprove its conclusion.” from the essay referenced above by Don Page.
Welcome Kenneth @quavis!
If the question was, Could the multiverse be the foundation of God’s creation?, then the answer would be yes, but it is not.
As you pointed out humans do not know if the multiverse is real or not. From what I understand most scientists say that there is no way that humans can verify is the multiverse exists in this world.
Science enjoys laughing at scholastics arguing over how many angels can dance on the point of a pin, but those scientists arguing over the nature of the multiverse are doing the same thing, arguing about some thing that cannot be verified and thus has no meaning.
Second, the multiverse as the essay indicates seems to be aimed at undercutting Christian arguments for God, since it is not a valid scientific theory. Darwinism did seem undercut the our understanding of how God created humanity. It does contradict the view that God create humanity separately, see Gen. 2, but that is a major problem only for those who see the Bible as absolutely accurate.
Darwinism seriously threatens Christianity when it claims that evolution is guide3d by chance and not by rational design, even though we know that we have a rational universe which cannot arise by means of pure chance.
Therefore, the evidence indicates that evolution is guided and designed, but science was unable to explain how that was. Now we know because ecology shows us hoe God planned to universe to begin with the Big Bang and for the earth to evolves into the world we are today. If we are able to survive the arrogance and rebellion of today humanity may survive a long time.
But how does multiverse undercut our understanding of God’s Creation? It does do by claiming that the our universe developed out to a process whereby universes of different types are generated so that we have a close to infinite number of universe so that there would be at least one like ours, but most would be failed
Questions? All of these universes would be infinite, so there can be no overlap and thus no communication or connection between them and us. Thus we are supposed to believe that there could be an almost infinite number of infinite universes in a space that we think is not infinite.
We are supposed to believe that the multiverse is a more rational way for the Creator tp produce a universe like ours, when it would seem to require more skill and resources to create a process which could create our universe or multiverse, than to create the universe in which we live.
Could God create a perpetual motion machine? If anyone could, God could, but motion means friction and friction means loss of energy (motion) which means it cannot go on producing motion perpetually. There are limits to what God does and to science can know. .
From what I understand science is close to these limits. Still there i8s much to do without banging our heads against the multiverse and wasting much money, time, and energy. This does not mean that we need to stop doing research, but the right balance needs to be found absent from ideology.
I object to the word oppose in the excerpt you quoted. If you replace the word oppose with the word fear, then this would be very close to my position.
Dear David @heddle,
Thank you for sharing.
Christians do not live by fear. They live by faith. God’s perfect Love casts our all fear.
That being said, I am very concerned that false scientific ideas (lies) such as the multiverse can fool people into thinking that they do not have to take Christianity and (good) science seriously. We all need to take the Truth in the form of both God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and (good) science seriously before it is too late.
That is real cause for concern, but not for fear.
Not sure what I would say to this except that your claim that the multiverse is a lie or false scientific idea is ironically not true, or at least we don’t know yet either way.
Hey there Roger A.Sawtelle! An interesting viewpoint you have in your response.I know there is much going on in the question of God vs.the Multiverse vs.Science and I know the contradictions will carry on for a long time to come.My topic"A Multiverse may be the foundation of God’s Creation" happens to be a viewpoint I have even with all of the debate over the Multiverse that’s happening.Well I can’t confirm its existence but what I do know is that if it does exist,then God created it for his own divine reasons—an if we never find scientific proof of it,that is not important.Some Humans tend to be vain and always need to justify if something important is or is not for their own satisfaction and egos (I’m not talking scientific curiosity or the need to know from research). What if there is an eternal Multiverse but God Almighty himself wants none of them to know about the other?That would leave us in a spot won’t it.Anyway if it is,then it is and if not then we claimed a flawed theory.I really think that it’s wonderful investigating the endless wonders of God’s great Cosmos and that it should be done with a steady hand without guessing,making groundless theories or trying to compete against the naysayers of the world.If there is truly a Multiverse,then if and when God wants us to know about it,that will happen.Thanks for your response!
Hi Kenneth:
I find it interesting (and a bit ironic) that you find that belief in a Multiverse is at least as comforting as a belief in the Anthropic Principle (either weak or strong). I believe I am correct in stating that the multiverse concept was first proposed to rebut the arguments put forth by Anthropic proponents (especially for the ‘strong’ type) that a single Universe could not have existed for as long as >13 billion years (let alone support Life) without the existence of a benevolent Creator who fine-tuned the ‘natural’ Laws we now observe.
I agree that, in principle, a belief in a Multiverse need not be incompatible with Christian Faith, but also (if I’m not mistaken) it cannot be subject to scientific verification. So I leave it on the back burner of ‘theories of interest’–leaving more time to wrestle with the problems (and potentials) of Quantum Physics.
I was a “Cradle Catholic” and educated K-8 in a parochial school. Thus you may also have faced some of the intellectual juggling I was subjected to as I matured and chose science as a career. Encountering the works of Teilhard de Chardin was very influential for me. He made the concepts of (Darwinian) evolution compatible to me and where I was already headed: namely, to a complete rejection of Original Sin. As you undoubtedly know, his theology was soundly rejected by the Vatican, and is now only surreptitiously ‘poking its nose’ under the tent of Roman dogma.
If you would like to become current with some his more ‘progressive’ ideas, I can recommend “From Teihard to Omega” Ilia Delio, Ed. It is on Amazon.
Greetings Albert Leo! No my belief in a Multiverse Created by God hasn’t been motivated or influenced by the weak or strong Anthropic Principles or proposed life-span of the Universe but a culmination of things over a period of time—along with reading of great books about Cosmology.Let’s just say that the verdict is in (for me at least)
.
I know that people tend to conflict God against Science and the Bible against a possible Multiverse but as simple as this may sound,is not God the creator of all things—The Bible,Scientific technology,research laboratories,genius innovators,aeronautical craft etc? My point being that we seem to forget who’s in charge here.I know that Humans always have to have an answer,a solution or some type of justification for something and they often think that everything has to make sense to them right?To me we need get back to the basics by acknowledging the Man in charge (God of course) and take in the information he allows us to attain gracefully and not rush to judgements or dispute over something that’s only a probable theory(as far as science is concerned). If there is a Multiverse out there, I am absolutely sure that mankind will find out one day!Now wait a minute,oh we already know because we are the Multiverse or part of it no?—“chuckle” just joking.I sometimes think of the idea of other earth-like planets going through the cycle we do ,looking for us so they can say that they finally discovered the Multiverse out there! —they may number more than a few.But good point about Quantum Physics—that is at the heart of Multiverse Research as well as Macro Technology which together may provide the scientific testable proof of whether the Multiverse does or does not exist guy.
OK "in closing I appreciate your recommendation about the book “From Teihard to Omega” but may be a while to get to as I now glance at 5 books waiting to be read on my dresser top—so I will be sure to keep a note about it.Thanks for your response!
Even before there was a cosmological multiverse, there was discussion about a quantum multiverse which comes from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (in the 1950s). It stems fairly naturally from the Schrodinger equation, which for there not to be a quantum multiverse, the Schrodinger equation needs to be incomplete in some way. The problem is that we don’t have any clue how it might be wrong just yet if at all.
There’s also the cosmological multiverse which stems mostly from the theoretical framework of eternal inflation. While we have some positive evidence for inflation in our universe, we don’t have any experimental evidence that this continued on producing other bubble universes. We have tried to think of clever ways to measure other universes but so far have been unsuccessful.
So the multiverse really is just a logical extension of two (or at least one) well substantiated ideas in physics. But of course, it presently lies beyond our ability to measure for the foreseeable future. I’m not sure about the history of it being used in Christian-atheist debates but that’s a little of the background at least as to why it’s a real hypothesis that is talked about in the scientific community.
I believe in an infinite God and we constantly seem to be finding out that God’s creation is more vast than we ever imagined, so I certainly have no problem with the idea of God creating a multiverse.
However, the fact is that the multiverse is generally offered as an alternative idea to that of the existence of God after the rather decisive setback to atheists (in their debate with theists) on the discovery that the universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Both posit that existence began with something: theists say it all came from God, and atheists/naturalists counter that it all came from natural law. But the beginning of the universe 13.8 billion years ago does present the atheist/naturalist view with some difficulties, for instead of natural law as a part of something which already exists it has to create the universe from nothing. This is not inconceivable, and Stephen Hawking suggested that quantum physics gives a basis for thinking that the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation. But others have proposed the alternative to this idea of a disembodied natural law creating the universe in the idea of a multiverse, which also helps to counter the fine tuning argument.
The point here is that there is no more objective evidence of a multiverse than there is of a creator God, and I don’t think there ever could be. What lies beyond the singularity of the universe’s beginning is not objectively knowable. So while anything is possible, I see no reason to complicate matters, and I personally find God to be the more believable explanation than a multiverse. However, this suggestion does illustrate one fundamental fact, why the idea of God will always be unfalsifiable and thus not a valid scientific hypothesis. It is just too easy to fit God into any set of facts you want.
If something is not true, then it is false or what I would call a lie, particularly when it is used to obscure the truth, which is what the multiverse does.
If you have a question that has two possible answers and the first is in harmony with science, philosophy, and theology, and the second is not in harmony of any of these, which one should we accept as true? If someone is not satisfied with this conclusion and wants to register a protest or dissenting opinion, that is alright with me, but it should be very clear that this is a matter of personal opinion, and not a fact. We do not need “alternative facts” in science.
If YHWH is not the God of Truth, but the God of Falsehood, then we are all really in a difficult spot. However I know and I hope you know that God is the God the Truth, and Satan is the god of lies. I do not want to have anything to do with the god of lies in science… I hear enough from him on Twitter.
Can you try to clarify what truths you think the multiverse is obscuring?
I just explained the two main scientific reasons why a multiverse is a viable hypothesis.
Then you should stop following Satan on Twitter already 
Is the multiverse concept similar to the acceptance of the diversity of biological species except on a quantum level? It is just phases of reality instead of dna. Since the fall, humanity has had a split reality that we still barely have an understanding about. For it to be a viable scientific theory the connection between the different realities would have to be observable and defined in a way that humanity would accept, and probably not involve an unknown being.
I doubt it is believers in God who fear the unknown. It would be those who objectively reject that which they cannot verify; who cannot objectively quantify fear so pass fear off on to those who can.
If I read what you have said correctly, there is no tangible evidence that our universe is sharing existence with billions of other universe, only some mathematical speculation. In my understanding of science, it is not based on ideas, but solid evidence. As I say it may be a hypothesis, but it does not seem to be viable.
The universe has a Beginning and it was created out of nothing, no matter, no time, no space, and no energy.
I do not follow Satan on Twitter. Don’t you listen to the news?
Yes, Kenneth, the theological concept that ‘God is the creator of all things and is, therefore, in charge here on earth’–is simple. And yet, as in ages past, we still struggle to reconcile the ‘fact’ that evil exists in a world that a good God has created. Can it be that we humans have a distorted concept of 'intrinsic evil’? Many Christians reject Darwinian evolution because it often involves predation, and of course survival by means of “red in tooth and claw” (and the suffering and death it inflicts on the prey) renders it intrinsically evil. Or does it?
Can it be that for true creation (of something truly NEW), something of the OLD must be sacrificed? In the early Cosmosphere some of the first stars that were formed were red giants, which could synthesize the heavy chemical elements in their hot, high pressured interiors. The future potential for these elements (heavier than iron) would remain forever unfulfilled if these stars were not unstable and ended their short lifetimes in monstrous explosions.
While current science cannot inform us on how life first appeared on earth (beginning of the Biosphere), most probably it was simpler than the viruses we encounter today. As these evolved and became more complex and more capable of dealing with the challenging environments of a dynamic planet earth, 'death’ of the old forms was necessary to make room for the more adaptable. This appears to be a basic Law in God’s plan for creation, even though ‘death’ in these early stages of the biosphere actually meant the inability to maintain a polymer length that was achieved earlier. And of course the biosphere was billions of years old before complex nervous systems became useful, and thus suffering would become a part of predation.
In trying to accommodate the ‘evils’ of suffering and death with the concept of a benevolent Creator, we Christians should welcome the viewpoint that science currently provides. Rather than encouraging humans to “get too big for their britches” and deny their need for God, science should help us see God’s Creation more like He intended us to. We Christians believe it was Jesus’ role to accomplish this from a spiritual perspective, but, IMHO, God welcomes our attempts to use science to achieve a productive view of the material world as well.
Al Leo
Hi there Mitchell W.McKain! Good piece you submitted based on the theists vs. the atheists regarding the Multiverse.That gives some insight—I had no knowledge of that before your post.Sounds like the concept of Multiverse was being used as some kind of lame excuse within this context.
You pointed out “that there is no more objective evidence of a Multiverse than there is of a Creator God”,which is correct.But at the same time,while you never saw,touched,or even heard God’s voice talking,you believe as you began your post that there is an infinite God right? Not to compare God to the Multiverse but if you have a true belief in God,then you need no physical evidence of his existence from your perspective correct?This is akin (though not as profoundly as God) to the way I perceive the Multiverse itself.You stated ''you see no reason to complicate matters",so for you personally it’s complicating and maybe so many others as well.But for me,I swear that I am so snugly certain within myself that a Multiverse exists that I require absolutely no testable,experimental,measurable,predictable proof,data or anything else to convince me that it’s real.
Lastly,as you pointed out,people do tend to easily fit God into any set of facts they want.Multiverse is not a fact but considered a theory by Scientists,Cosmologists,and society in-general.Having said that,How can I fit God into the Multiverse theory while he is already the planner and creator of it all?(considering that it actually does exist). I make no excuses for why I believe in a Multiverse.I’ve acquired enough knowledge in the last 3 years to totally convince me that a Multiverse does in fact exist.Thanks for your response!