These days, the notion of a multiverse (multiple universes) is becoming very popular, and a full fledged alternative to believing in a Creator God. But as I’ll outline here, believing in a multiverse requires just as much faith as believing in God.
A Finely Tuned Universe:
The first thing we need to establish is that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned for life. Physicist Andrei Linde has said, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.” Max Tegmark, associate professor of physics at MIT states, “Our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount, life as we know it would be impossible.” MIT physics professor Alan Lightman writes, “according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen… The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.” According to physicist Roger Penrose our universe is finely tuned to 1 in 10 to the 123rd power!
This fine tuning is troubling for naturalists because it is an incredibly unlikely coincidence which is not characteristic of the randomness that naturalism is based on. Former JPL Team Lead Systes Administrator David Coppedge writes, “The universe appears finely tuned for our existence. To naturalists, this looks disturbingly unnatural.” This of course leads one to suggest that our universe was predetermined and designed for us, ergo there is a god. Lightman explains, “the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.”
This conclusion is not unfamiliar in scientific circles. Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” Physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies writes, “[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all… It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.” Former MIT physicist and president of the Association of Women in Science Vera Kistiakowsky stated, “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”
So if the fine tuning of the universe is so recognizable and obvious, how could any scientists suggest there is no God? Stephen Hawking has said, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” Since science only provides data on the natural, and God is supernatural, most scientists assert that science cannot apply to God, and a natural explanation is needed for ALL things. And thus, the multiverse flies in to the resuce. As cosmologist Bernard Carr writes, “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
The multiverse theory allows for the simultaneous existence of an infinite amount of additional universes outside of ours. Within these other parallel universes everything and anything is possible. And if anything is possible than atheists can dodge the problem of a finely tuned universe. But the multiverse cannot be properly described because we cannot observe it. It is impossible to know how far apart the universes are, the contents within them, are they like ours, or completely different? We’ll never know.
Recently the multiverse theory has been gaining momentum because of applications with eternal inflation and string theory. Eternal inflation and string theory allows for the same fundamental principals from which we develop the laws of nature from can also lead to other self consistent universes. The basis being that there are countless other possible scenarios for other universes, and we’re not limited to the narrow precision found in our own.
Eternal Inflation proposes that when the universe first exploded outward there was a particular brief (fraction of a second) period of rapid expansion. Immediately after this expansion the energy that caused it ignited into a super fire ball we call the “big bang.” In our cosmic neighborhood inflation ended billions of years ago, but it continues elsewhere randomly, causing new universes to expand and form at such rapid speeds we push each other apart making room for other inflation bubbles (universes) to form. Throw in string theory which allows for countless possibilities for physical laws and principals and you have the multiverse!
This isn’t to say that all physicists agree on the multiverse. There is a large divide in the scientific community regarding this subject. One of the arguments for the multiverse is the simple premise that we’re here to even debate the subject. The fact that we exist and are here is testimony to our universe being perfect for life. It is not divine design, we just happen to be present because everything just happened to be randomly perfect in our universe out of countless possibilities in other universes. Alexander Vilenkin, professor of physics and director at the Instituteof Cosmology, writes, “…intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that.”
But this argument falls flat for various reasons: First, explaining our existence by simply stating “we’re here” is not an explanation at all. That is like taking a lethal dose of poison and surviving, but when someone asks “how did you survive the poison?” you respond, “well, I’m alive aren’t I?” As you can see this doesn’t answer the question because we still don’t know how you survived the lethal poison. Likewise, pointing out our existence does not answer how or why we are here. It is a non-answer. Second, there are many other problems that are over looked such as the Law of Biogenesis and the perfect conditions found on earth which defy all odds.
Problems with the Multiverse:
One problem with the multiverse is the philisophical problem of infinite regress, which applies to any reality. The problem being; what first caused the universe to be? What caused the multiverse to begin? One can’t dodge the issue by saying that the multiverse created our universe because the issue is quite easily pushed back one step: What started/caused the multiverse? Hawking writes, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.” Vilenkin writes, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” Professor of Physics at Princeton University Paul Steinhardt and Cosmologist and Mathematician George Ellis agrees, “…even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained.” Professor of Mathematics for the University of Oxford John Lennox writes, “It is rather ironical that in the sixteenth century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the twentieth century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.” So even if the multiverse is a correct hypothesis, it is still not a full fledged alternative to God.
Another problem with the multiverse is that, if correct, it tears apart the very fabric of philosophy and science, making the study of our universe through fundamental principals and causes futile since the multiverse allows for anything and everything to be possible outside of our universe. The laws of physics for our universe are incredibly precise with hardly any minute allowance for variations. Such precision is irrelevant if other universes exist under different circumstances. Lightman explains, “As far as physicists are concerned, the fewer the fundamental principles and parameters, the better. The underlying hope and belief of this enterprise has always been that these basic principles are so restrictive that only one, self-consistent universe is possible, like a crossword puzzle with only one solution. That one universe would be, of course, the universe we live in… If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true.” Therefore, considering the possibility of the multiverse changes everything. This poses a problem because it becomes an “anything goes” philosophy, leaving the door open to any possibilities that physicists can imagine… except of course the notion of a God… because that is just unscientific and ridiculous… right?
Most important, however, is that there is no empirical scientific proof of the multiverse! Ellis agrees that since the multiverse cannot be tested, even in principal, it is therefore unscientific. Some physicists argue that can be tested in one of two ways: 1) If our inflation bubble collided with another bubble, their would be evident remnants of the contact which we could observe. But no such thing has been discovered nor is guaranteed because such a collision may have or will never occur. 2) Statistical predictions could be made by applying the theoretical model of the multiverse to predict the constants of nature in our universe, which would vary from universe to universe. But such a strategy involves numerous assumptions, like considering our universe as typical among other universes in the multi-verse. This becomes circular reasoning since it relies on the multiverse being true in order to work, which there is no proof of.
Ellis writes, “The trouble is that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best… All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.”
Lack of evidence is not a problem for pro-multiverse physicists because, to them, all it has to be is possible. But possible does not prove existence. It doesn’t matter if String Theory or Eternal Inflation allows for countless other possible universes, because that doesn’t mean there are other universes outside of ours. Just as a painter having hundreds of different paints in his studio makes it possible for him to mix and create thousands of different colors when painting on a canvas. It is possible for the painter to do so, but that doesn’t mean the painter has, is or ever will do so. In other words, it is naïve to assume anything that can happen, does happen. Additionally, string theory and eternal inflation theory have hardly any experimental support leaving them still obscure theories.
Additionally, the multiverse relies on a variety of assumptions, which if any one of them is wrong, knocks the entire multiverse idea into the trash. Ellis lists the following problematic assumptions: 1) Inflation may be wrong or not eternal. 2) Quantum Mechanics may be wrong. 3) String Theory may be wrong or lack multiple outcomes. 4) Lastly, the Big Bang theory still has problems that haven’t been sorted out.
Furthermore, at a philosophic level the multiverse gives way to a slippery slope of bigger systems; an infinite multiverse size or a multiverse within other larger multiverses. Where does it end? Is the multiverse apart of something even larger. Thus, the only limits of the multiverse lie in our seemingly infinite imaginations.
A Matter of Faith?
Naturally, atheist and agnostic scientists jump all over the idea of the multiverse because it rules out God. Theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg writes, “Over many centuries science has weakened the hold of religion, not by disproving the existence of God but by invalidating arguments for God based on what we observe in the natural world. The multiverse idea offers an explanation of why we find ourselves in a universe favorable to life that does not rely on the benevolence of a creator, and so if correct will leave still less support for religion.” What these scientists appear to be overlooking is the paralell similarity between the logic behind the multiverse and the logic behind God. That is, faith based principals.
For example, Tagmark, in defense of the multiverse, argues that many people commit to fallacy by assuming that just because there is no observable proof of something it does not exist, called the omnivision assumption, “If the omnivision assumption is false, then there are unobservable things that exist and we live in a multiverse.” Yet one could just as easily use this same logic to argue the existence of a Creator God. I can throw God in there and say there are unobservable things that exist and we live in a universe created by God.
The multiverse, like God, can be both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Something that is unprovable and unfalsifiable lies outside of scientific inquiry. Pro-multiverse physicists claim that this is acceptable because the multiverse is logically necessary to explain the fine tuning of our universe. This is completely ignoring the possibility of God, which would sufficiently explain the fine tuning. Furthermore, physicists that support the multiverse theory claim that those anti-multiverse are guilty of claiming omniscense, or knowledge of everything. Since that is impossible, how can anyone say the multiverse doesn’t exist? But this then becomes an un-falsifiable topic. I could just as easily replace the word “multiverse” with “God” and make the same argument. It is interesting that God as represented in the Bible is often mocked by many physicists as not being scientific, yet they will adhere to a multiverse theory that can by definition violate any scientific laws required to make it plausible.
Lightman recognizes this, “Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.” In order to support the multiverse you need an abundant faith not founded in observable science. Yet these same supporters scoff at faith in God. How is this not hypocrasy?
Many of the questions physcists are usually striving to answer such as purpose and cause cannot be answered by science based on the very nature and ramifications of the answers. Ellis writes, “The universe might be pure happenstance — it just turned out that way. Or things might in some sense be meant to be the way they are — purpose or intent somehow underlies existence. Science cannot determine which is the case, because these are metaphysical issues.”
At this time we can only conclude the following with observable science:
1) The laws of nature express an incredibly unlikely accuracy of fine-tuning for life.
2) There is currently no proven physical explanation for this fine tuning.
3) We observe our universe and no others.
4) The fine tuning embedded in natural law has been found to be specifically complex.
Yet, the train of thought for multiverse proponents is, in my opinion, less logical:
1) The universe appears designed for us. But a Designer(God) cannot not exist.
2) Since there is no designer, there must be another natural explanation.
3) There is no observable natural explanation, but there are various unverifiable theories that allow for the possibility of a natural explanation.
4) Using these various unverifiable theories we can construct one overlying unverifiable theory (the multiverse) as the natural explanation.
5) There is no proof of the multiverse, but we exist, so the multiverse must exist because there is no Designer(God).
So we’re left with two options. Believing in God, which goes beyond science but does not contradict it. Or believe in the multiverse which makes up the science and rules as it goes along. One road leads to the multiverse. The other leads to an intelligent creator God. Theoretical Physicist Tony Rothman once said, “When confronted with the order and beauty of our universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to make the leap of faith from science to religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” Cosmologist Edward Harrison concludes, “Here is the cosmological proof for the existance of God- the design argument of Paley- updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one… Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” 
For me, I’ll stick with what I believe is the more logical and safe bet: God.
 Davies, P., (1988) The Cosmic Blueprint, Simon & Schuster:New York,NY, pp. 203.
 As quoted in Hugh Ross’ The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress Publishing Group:Colorado Springs,CO, (1994) pp. 115.
 Rothman, T., (May 1987) “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’ Theory,” Discover pp. 99
 Harrison, E., (1985) Masks of the Universe, Collier Books,New York,NY, pp. 252, 263.