I absolutely deny their existence. Though, in an alternate reality, I very much affirm them.
11 Likes
The two are generally separate ideas but may be part of the same overarching theory that we are not yet aware of. They aren’t threats to anything in Christianity which I think is demonstrated well by Christian Cosmologist, Don Page. Here are two articles of his regarding the many worlds interpretation and multiverse respectively:
A Theological Argument for an Everett Multiverse
Does God So Love the Multiverse?
Generally speaking there is no scientific hypothesis that ever can be pitted against God. Some historical examples could be Pouchet vs. Pasteur on spontaneous generation (specifically the mechanism of heterogenesis). They were both Christians on both sides of the issue and could accomodate either hypothesis in their Christianity. Another example could be with the Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory in cosmology. You had Christians on both sides, with William Duncan Macmillian and Robert Millikan as advocates for the steady state theory. Part of their argument was based upon their theological understanding of God being a continual creator! It might have been unfathomable to imagine the Big Bang Theory being compatible with a Christian conception of God for many decades ago, but now today most Christians can readily adopt such a model within our theological understanding of God.
2 Likes
I see what you did there. Well played sir.
Regarding the original post, I’ve never understood why many worlds and multiverse are so often linked. The first has no intuitive appeal to me at all whereas the latter strikes me as more likely than not, though indemonstrable. If a multiverse is indeed the case I cannot imagine how anyone can imagine that every universe would be populated by every conceivable alternate choice or state of the world we live in. Isn’t that absurd on the face of it?
On the other hand I see no reason why God or religion should be nullified if the universe should turn out to be an instance or part of a much grander order. That sort thing would only come up in debates involving fragile theological origins of the YEC variety. I don’t see why any religious view of origins which isn’t adverse to science should have anything to worry about on account of a multiverse.
2 Likes
I think that it is the metaphysics that pervades the physics. I seem to recall a similar vein from the New Age folks who misuse the fact that a particle–in quantum mechanics–can be at anywhere at anytime, and extend that to a person or a spirit. But I agree with you Mark… Although I must admit that part of the repulsion comes from the fact that those scenarios have always made my head hurt. 
1 Like
I don’t see them as real multi-universes, but see them as mere mirror projections of what could be, just as the mirror projection of you isn’t really you, so is that mirror-alternate reality, it isn’t real but a mirror projection of what could have been.
I appreciate the article and agree with most of it. However I didn’t find this argument very persuasive.
It isn’t that I think anything science has uncovered about the early universe or the possibility of a multiverse is evidence for believing no creator could possibly be involved. I just object to characterizing the conditions we happen to find in the only universe to which we have any access as a narrow escape from a firing squad. Scientists have sketched out a sequence of events which, all lined up and leading to the world we know, does almost seem like a winning lotto ticket. But how is that anything like a firing squad escapee where we understand the capacity and intention of the shooting squad? There is no reason to think a ‘big bang’ has the intention to destroy the possibility of life. We are unable to point to one instance of a universe in which that has ever happened. And we have no track record of big bang results on which to base any assignment of likelihood for our survival. It just isn’t an apt comparison.
To assign an equal probability to every conceivable ‘setting’ of the constants is a judgement call I don’t think anyone has any basis for making. We just don’t know whether our universe is like a coin both of whose sides represent an outcome hostile to the possibility of sustaining life, while a goldilocks outcome like ours requires that it land on its edge. I don’t know enough to characterize our universe as “lucky” let alone “miraculous”. Of course I also can’t rule out the possibility that those adjectives really do apply. So I agree with the main thrust of the article that arguments from science to theological conclusions serve neither side.
2 Likes
I cannot take seriously any argument that starts with “God loathes…” because it goes against the teaching of Jesus about God. God is Love and not loathing. God Loves us regardless of what we do as Jesus tells in HIs parable of the Prodigal Son.
From physics though, I agree with @mitchellmckain. It is a possible outcome of the imperfect theory of quantum physics. As this theory is refined, these nonsensical theoretical outcomes will become less and less. They make for interesting science fiction, but that is about it.
Well, there’s this:
Proverbs 6:16-19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
2 Likes
Jesus did not write Proverbs.
1 Like
Agreed. I don’t recall him preaching against them either.
That said, I was trying to follow your train of thought and could not tell what you were commenting about. So the context may be off. Apologies if so.
1 Like
Does anyone here know what Dr. Haarsma was referring to in the video above when she mentioned “the weekend traffic principle”?
1 Like
It took me aback for a second too, until I realized she said “weak antropic principle.”
Now, I googled misunderstood song lyrics, and wasted another half hour of time!
3 Likes
It’s what happens when your firing squad is made up entirely of Sunday drivers. 
5 Likes
Thanks!
“weak anthropic principle" → “weekend traffic principal” 
So much for YouTube’s auto-captioning feature and my impaired hearing! I was expecting another analogy like the firing squad. 
(I do like puns, as you probably noticed here. )
2 Likes
(Wordplay has the price I like to pay for entertainment. 
)
1 Like
I’m sympathetic. Hearing aides have helped a lot for me and of course I wear glasses too. Just the other day I was wondering why I could no longer start a new thread or send a message to the mods for help. Turned out by enlarging the text on my screen to make it easier for old eyes to see, I’d made it so big that the fields for entering an addressee for the message or a title for the new post didn’t appear. Like you I prefer to find that funny.
3 Likes
Personally, I simply find the idea of a literally infinite multiverse simply ridiculous. Quite literally “worthy of ridicule.” Firstly, I note is entirely and completely speculative.
Secondly, it is just silly. It would mean that somewhere, there is an identical version of me but who coincidentally and inexplicably hiccup at exactly 12:02 every Tuesday. And another version of me that, whenever I deal a deck of cards, I always without exception randomly deals myself a royal straight.
And not just that these realities exist, but there would, literally be an infinite number of universes wherein I get these consistent royal flushes, and an infinite number of universes wherein I hiccup at 12:02 every Tuesday. And an infinite number where I hiccup at 12:03…
Besides having no proof, the idea itself, if given any serious thought, is downright ludicrous. It makes for fun tropes in science fiction, but I honestly don’t think it is good for much more.
There is a place for “philosophical worlds”, where any number of infinite possible worlds are speculated, or hypothesized, as a thought experiment to consider what is ormisnt logically possible… but a real infinity of actual alternate worlds is just ridiculous.
3 Likes
I totally agree when it comes to imagining that there is another universe for every possible version of you and others in which you made every other choice instead of each choice you actually made. Absurd. Fanciful. Unlikely.
But that is an entirely different question than that of whether our universe is part of a larger schema, i.e. a multiverse. As you say we have no way of confirming it but then neither have we any way to confirm that our universe is unique. Personally I find the multiverse far more likely.
1 Like
Christians have reasons for knowing why God created the universe, and this globe in particular – the short of it is to increase his joy by sharing it. I find it unlikely that other life* will be found in the universe, but I’m not afraid of it. C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy comes to mind.
This is interesting, too:
*Hugh Ross has been saying for at least a couple of decades that evidence of microbial life will be found on other objects in our solar system because of detritus blasted up from earth in meteoric impacts.
1 Like
And I have reasons for admitting I just don’t know. But without a doubt the galaxy, the universe and whatever else might be out there is a very, very large. I find it awe inspiring however I think there is a tendency to inflate our significance and that isn’t always for the best. I would not agree with the atheists who claim we have no significance but we should recognize that most of our significance is for the effects we have on family, friends, students, colleagues and the strangers we meet on the internet. Nothing we do is going to cause a galactic meltdown but it would be nice if we could avoid a climatic meltdown for future generations on our own ‘little’ world.
There is much we know of which we should be grateful for that science and culture have made available to us through no major effort of our own. But whatever the documentary, lecture or book we depend on for our knowledge we shouldn’t get too attached to what we think we know. More can be discovered which will call for revision. So we should try to stay humble in what we claim to know.
Many atheists project a certainty they are not entitled to about the uselessness of religion and the baselessness of its claims. That sort of boastfulness and conceit is nothing to emulate. I don’t believe in the sort of God Christianity describes but I have beliefs of my own which I can no more justify than Christians can their’s. Perhaps it is better to be hopeful and humble whatever it is we believe, rather than undermining what others believe and hope for.
2 Likes