Multiple Universes and Creation

One of the many strong evidences for the existence of God is the evidence seen in the Creation itself. When you compare the view that there was a beginning and a cause with the view that there was no cause and that matter/energy is eternal, the evidence is strongly in support of the former. Skeptics have tried a variety of techniques to avoid such a conclusion. In 1927, according to US News and World Report ( July 20, 1998, page 46) George Lemaitre argued for the view that the universe was expanding from a single place. The article states "Most researchers scoffed at Lemaitre's concept, partly because they worried that it represented an attempt to grant credence to a theological notion of a discrete moment of Genesis." Denial has continued to be a tool of the skeptic, even after evidence has shown the validity of the fact of the beginning and a cause.

Most recently the discovery that the universe seems to be accelerating in its expansion, has put the final nail in the coffin of the oscillating universe theory (U.S. News & World Report, July 20, 1998, pages 45-52). This theory had been used by skeptics to avoid accepting the idea that the universe had a beginning. The idea was that the universe expanded and then stopped and pulled back, collapsing to a single point from which it expanded again--going in and out, in an eternal cycle. There had been many problems with the theory, but the fact that the cosmos is accelerating puts an end to this theory as a possibility. If everything is accelerating away from everything else, there is no possibility that the cosmos could come to a stop in its expansion and be pulled back to a single point.

To find an alternative to replace the oscillating universe theory (an explanation of why one should not believe there was a beginning that was caused) a theory called The Multiple Universe Theory has been proposed. There are several versions of this idea, but a commonly expressed one goes like this.

Deep in the past, some unknowable event triggered the first foundations of a multiuniverse. Chance reigned, and many heavens were born with physical laws adverse to life. They collapsed back on themselves or diffused into vapor and were never heard from again. But those universes that were born with physicals laws familiar to us were also the ones able to make black holes: That allowed them to trigger "daughter" universes. Over time, a fantastically large and complex multiverse resulted with most parts of the cosmos having physical laws that allow life--natural selection functioning on a cosmic scale (Dr. Lee Smolin, Pennsylvania State University).

The multiuniverse theory supposes that black holes spawn universes in other dimensions. There, universes would inflate in a process like the big bang. Multiuniverse theory makes the cosmos so huge and interactions between various daughter universes so frequent that an "eternal inflation" is proposed. Since the daughter universes are not coming from a physical process in their own dimension, they are coming from nothing. The process can never end because you can- not run out of nothing.

Wading through the various proposals like these, one cannot help but wonder if this whole discussion is not more fantasy than scientific theory. There are numerous reasons to question such an approach:

  1. All of this is based on numerous untested ideas. False vacuums are proposed as mechanisms involved in the process, but these are highly speculative. Empty space is assumed to have energy associated with it.
  2. The assumption that other physical universes exist is totally void of any evidence.
  3. All proposals in this area use terms like Smolin's first sentence: "Some unknowable event triggered." This is not a falsifiable statement. There is no way to test it, so it is a matter of faith.
  4. Chance is believed to be the driving force in the process. Many reputable scientists find such a proposal untenable. Allan Sandage, one of the world's leading astronomers, has stated that all of this has made him a believer in God, "willing to accept that creation could only be explained as a miracle."

We live in an exciting time. New evidence becomes available on a daily basis. Humans will make proposals like multiple universes, and some of them will never be disproven because there is no way to test them. All of these proposals, however, fail to give any answers to the questions of why? Why does something exist instead of nothing. No matter how big you imagine things to be, there can always be something bigger.

Those of us who believe in God are working from the other direction. We see God not just as stupendously large, but rather totally infinite. Whatever number of universes one can imagine, God is greater than that. In addition to that infinite makeup, God is also seen in other ways. These involve design in everything we are and can imagine. These also involve love and a purpose in our lives. They also provide personal strength and help in all times of human pain and loss.

Gregg Easterbrook says, "Attributing the virtues of this cosmos to unseen other universes is a little like attributing the virtues of existence to God--in either case, you might be right, but you're assuming an article of faith."

The difference is that the faith of the multiuniverse believers is totally blind while those who believe and follow God have a wealth of other evidence to support what they believe.

--John N. Clayton

Back to Contents Does God Exist?, JulAug99.