What about the multiverse?


(Edward Miller) #21

I do not believe that it undermines our Lord’s Word; however, it does show that there are still many questions that must be answered. Another question is this: Is it possible for one to travel to another multiverse and survive? Could I shake my Doppelgaenger’s hand, or would the whole multiverse system collapse?


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #22

@AntoineSuarez,

With all due respect I must strenuously disagree with you here. While the multiverse does not mean that God would not exist, it empties the concept of most of its meaning. Of course the view is meaningless because it cannot be tested and it goes against all experience.

God is not infinite meaning that God has no limits, God is definite, meaning God is good, not evil. God is wise, not foolish.

God did not create all possible worlds so we could have one good one as some seem to claim. God created the best of all possible worlds into one so all could enjoy.

It seems that there are two versions of the Many Worlds view, the physical and the human. The physical says that God has to create 25 to the 500 billionth power, give or take, to get the one that we live in. On the other hand there seems to be the view that human history needs help in determining winners and losers, so that when there is a choice, time splits into two or more separate streams so everyone is a winner in at least one of the streams. Thus after the horror of WW2 in one stream of history Hitler & Co. rule the world.

Hindus believe in incarnation. They believe that we all get many chances to live the good life and go to heaven so to speak. On the other hand Buddhists think that reincarnation is not good, but a heavy weight around our necks.

Christians think we only get one chance to live this life and we need to make the most of it. On the other hand we have Jesus to help us every step on the way. It is not faceless reincarnation or history that decides whether our life is meaningful or not. It is God Who loves and made us.

However many worlds that might exist, for better or worse we live in this one. Nothing is going to change that. We need to make the most of the gifts that God gives to us.


(Antoine Suarez) #23

Thanks Roger for these objections, which allow me to explain more accurately my understanding of the Multiverse.

I dare to disagree: The Multiverse, if correctly interpreted, allow us to harmonize God’s omniscience and human free will. The “parallel worlds” are “thoughts” in “the mind of God”.

If by “tested” you mean directly demonstrated by experiment on a lab-bench, then you have also to admit that God cannot be tested.

On the other hand miracles like that of the “dance of the sun” on October 13, 2017 can be considered to some extent a demonstration of “parallel worlds”: the 70’000 people gathered on Cova da Iria at 2 pm were manifestly in a parallel (but not less real) world to the world the rest of the planet inhabitants were in.

This is a very nice thought I totally share: the world we live in is in any case the best of all possible worlds because at the end God’s Kingdom happens. When heaven becomes realized on earth, the final state of the world will contain all the good and happiness that would have happen in each of all the possible worlds.

To the versions you mention you can add the version I am proposing regarding the “miracle of the sun” or the “miracle of the Israelite’s crossing the Red Sea”: People on earth splits into two groups; one group sees reality in a way (the sun dancing) and the other group in a different way (the sun following its ordinary trajectory). I think a similar explanation may apply to Noah’s Flood as well.

Be aware that also this “stream of history” has to end into God’s Kingdom. This means that even if Hitler & Co. had ruled the world (what at the beginning of WW2 in fact happened) something would have happened that thwarted their victory (as in fact happened when US entered WW2).

This is just my conviction too, and the consequence of the Multiverse, if it is appropriately interpreted.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #24

God can be tested and is tested every day as we live in this universe which is created in and through the Logos, Jesus Christ. There is only one Logos, and only one Reality as far as humans are concerned. There is only one universe.


(Edward Miller) #25

You have convinced me that is only one universe. What evidence that anyone has to support the theory of multiverses?

Edward


(RiderOnTheClouds) #26

I’ve yet to see why the idea of a multiverse truly rules out the existence of a sentient higher power.


#27

It doesn’t rule it out.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #28

While multiverse does not rule out “a sentient Higher Power,” making God One Who creates by trial and error reduces God’s creativity and the mechanistic way Multiverse works reduces God relational nature.

Thus we have a degraded “version” of perhaps a deistic God, not the One we worship. The main problem with the multiverse is that there is no credible evidence to back up this speculation. Truth is always better than fiction.


#29

So how does this square up with the billions of planets in the universe that are not habitable? How is that any different than a multiverse where only a small number of universes are capable of supporting life?


(RiderOnTheClouds) #30

Is that necessarily why God would create multiple universes?


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #32

I am not sure of your question. Strictly speaking nothing is necessary to God. God does whatever God chooses to do. The only thing we can really do is observe what God has done and work back from that with the guidance of revelation to determine why God most likely did what God did.

I do not think that God did create multiple universes. However others said that instead of fine tuning one universe as seems to be the case, God or whatever could have produced an almost infinite number of universes to assume that one would meet the specifications to support life and humanity as per the Anthropic Principle.

The anthropic principle is based on the fact that it is our whole universe that supports life including human life. All the planets and stars are needed, not just our solar system. The multiverse view clutters up “the multiverse” with literally billions of unneeded, dead, junk universes.


#33

Then the anthropic principle is wrong because all we need is the solar system we find ourselves in. If Andromeda disappeared today it wouldn’t make a difference here on Earth.


(Juan Romero) #34

A friend of mine sent me Don Page’s paper concerning God and the multiverse. I think you should give it a read.


(Juan Romero) #35

Hasn’t the anthropic principle been refuted?


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #36

Not to my knowledge and I would not expect it to be.

Since humans (Anthropos) are created in God’s own Image, the fact that the universe was created for them is an important clew for Who God Is.

Some scientists were trying to reject the AP and Fine Tuning, but then the ideas became incorporated into multiverse thinking, so they could not.


(Juan Romero) #37

Well, I’m asking because the other day I watched a video where Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher, theologian and astrophysicist Manuel Carreira explains the AP and someone on the comment section said that the principle has already been refuted.

The video is in Spanish

Then, I came across this video, where Victor Stenger talks abput the AP.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #38

@archicastor1

Juan,

I watched some of the Strenger video.

One clear flaw in his thinking was he said that the universe is infinite, when obviously it is not. The universe is limited in time and space, and therefore it cannot be eternal.

Of course it is conceivable that there are alternative realities where then rules of science and logic do not apply, so we can say that everything is possible. But given what we know today about a time before time is clearly BS that should not be taken seriously without some kind of real evidence. If the universe were infinite we would be infinite and all things would be possible and probable.

As far as I can tell his take on anthropic principle is just as misguided.


#39

How does that thought square with Romans 1: 19-20?

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.


#40

Perhaps it’s not so much the “physical” as it is the fact that secular scientists reject divine creation and must per force find a naturalistic cause for the existence of the universe. Now since the current model of the big bang clearly indicates an impossibility - everything from nothing - they have to find some way to wrangle themselves past that difficulty. Hence the idea of a multiverse.
However, in doing that, they already cross the line into the realm of non-science. The hypothesis does not even fit in the scientific methodology. There is no way to observe, verify and repeat the existence experiment. The whole idea of a multiverse is unscientific.


(Curtis Henderson) #41

I believe there is a difference between having evidence of God as Creator and proving His existence. I am using “prove” to mean demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt. Sadly, the huge number of people that do not believe in God shows that doubt is quite prevalent.

The verses in Romans show that there is evidence. The human condition shows that there is not proof - at least in the way I am using the word.