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.
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.
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.
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.
What I claim to know as a Christian is not disanalogous to my claiming to know my biological father – I know my heavenly Father, too.
Christians also should recognize that God had a two creation model from the start. (That is something that YECs fail to grasp when they insist that this first creation was ‘perfect’ with no animal death before the fall.) This one was subjected to futility from the beginning. A comment that I have posted after news articles on climate change:
Thank you for the clarification and I’m glad we agree about the desirability of good planetary stewardship even if we’re both uncertain how that will turn out. Naturally I hope for an honest attempt at a timely resolution of our current climate difficulties. I don’t want to hand on a broken planet for future generations to struggle over when the one we found in our childhood still had so much vitality. Like you I do despair that the political will can be found for doing what is right instead of pointing fingers at the other side while ignoring the iceberg ahead. But I wonder if you could clarify what you meant by a “two creation model”?
Thank you all for your responses. Just want to make it clear that my problem is not the case of multiverse in general, but this interpretation as if you hold it , you end up thinking that everything you do has no impact on the overall reality and so your actions seem futile. I agree with many of you that it sounds counterintuitive and even ridiculous, but I have read that many scientists and philosophers find it as the simplest and so the most possible answer, in regard to the underlying mathematics.
Then the problem seems to be one of identity. In my thinking your choices ARE your identity – I even believe that your choices create your eternal spirit. In that case all these others who choose differently are not you. So the question remains, which of all these possibilities do you want to be?
I think it is primarily philosophers who are responsible for this along with other seemingly odd positions such as determinism and solipsism which are mostly considered but not subscribed to. (Though there are way too many crackpots on my side of the theistic divide who decry the possibility of free will, a position they presumably can’t help but take according to them.)
There also are a couple of references to God’s creation of “a new heaven and a new earth” in both the OT and the NT.
Additionally, it means that Jesus was not Plan B.
*(…hence the objections mid-last century when big bang cosmology became the dominant cosmological model with its theistic implications and earning its name as a pejorative from Hoyle.)
**(I think the beast is the god Commerce, but that is another conversation. )
It is actually not possible for me to lose it. I could no more be spiritually unborn again than I can become biologically unborn. ‘Deconversion’ is a misnomer – God does not unmake new creations.
True confession: I was only referring to the faith in free will we both share. What theistic beliefs you hold are your own business but we don’t overlap there … distant cousin.
You’re certainly more confident than I am. When I say I’m settled in what I believe I just mean that it hasn’t been arrived at lightly or without a constant weighing of conscience. Doesn’t mean I won’t change my mind with good reason, but certainly no abstract metaphysical argument is going to move me.
More importantly I don’t for a minute think anyone else should set aside what they hold dear in order to embrace my own conclusions. I choose to live in a world of peers. I respect everyone’s right to make their own decisions. I’m happy to discuss and enjoy doing so, but I don’t want to bamboozle anyone. I do tend to lose respect for people who try to hard sell me because it shows that respect hasn’t been returned.
That is a profound sentence right there - at least to me. And one that enthusiastic Christians ought to reflect on.
To tug on the other end of that same rope for just a bit, though, when you say:
Very commendable; but do you also have a desire to help people be freed from “bamboozling” by others? Especially if it is opportunistic or victimizing? And wouldn’t such attempted rescuing imply that the rescuer must know something or have some handle on a truth that the other ostensibly then needs? I.e. I can appreciate, and even celebrate your desire to avoid arrogance, but it would seem that in any worthwhile social or communication endeavors there must be something of a truth involved. Delivered without arrogance - hopefully. But it is no good pretending that communications should never involve a provisional side and a needy side. When one always fancies themselves as a “supplier of truth” (and never needy) - that arrogance is easy to recognize after a bit. But that social (and almost certainly epistemic) failure on their part doesn’t make those two essential categories (provisional and needy) disappear.
I think I see what you’re saying here. There is definitely truth out there to be had from others, and I’ve found plenty hanging out here that I’ve had no trouble accepting. The difference is the gracious, respectful dialogue. When we offer the reasons for accepting it nakedly without coercion and leave it to the other to accept or reject by their own lights, it is both more pleasant and more productive.
The decision to treat others as peers was important for me. No matter what I think I know about what is going on with others, really, I have to admit I can’t be sure. And imposing my take on them never really felt right anyway. The decision to treat others as peers inclines one to employ empathy more often and withhold judgement. In my experience that leads to a better quality of life.
I do. When I think people are being too coercive I almost always say something to poke a hole in their presumed authority. But really I find the best way to get honest dealing is to lead with it yourself, plus you’ll feel better about yourself no matter how often it inclines others to do the same.
)
