The Multiverse Theory
Vol: 19 Issue: 24 Wednesday, February 24, 2016
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which unbelievers will go to ‘prove’ there is no God. First, because it is impossible to ‘prove’ a negative — that is, to ‘prove’ something does not exist.
As Donald Rumsfeld famously pointed out in 2008, ‘absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence’. Because I cannot demonstrate God is sitting in this same room with me does not prove He is not there.
I cannot demonstrate that my desk is made up of atoms, either. But because I cannot see something at the molecular structure doesn’t mean it isn’t.
And that is the first thing a scientist would tell you. About practically anything — except God. Some of the most famous scientists in our world, Richard Dawkins, Stephen F Hawking, etc., are atheists — a belief structure built entirely on the absence of evidence.
But whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant to His existence. When confronted with scientific evidence that points to God they either become decidedly unscientific about it and reject it out-of-hand or they built elaborate counter explanations like the Mult-verse Theory.
Scientific evidence? What scientific evidence? Noted Tim Folger in Discover Magazine;
“Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles.”
Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents. Science is supposed to be skeptical of accidents.
In explaining why the multiverse theory is attractive to scientists who reject the concept of a Creator God, Folger writes:
“Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.”
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation:
“Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.”
You see, that’s the problem science is currently wrestling with. The danger that they may be forced to “invoke a benevolent Creator” as the only logical and scientifically plausible explanation for what we’re learning about our universe.
“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.”
See? It’s either the ‘multiverse theory’ — or we’re stuck with God.
Five hundred years ago, the Polish astronomer Copernicus put forth a theory that is regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy. Prior to Copernicus, it was an accepted scientific fact that the earth was the center of the universe.
The more we learn about our universe, the more obvious it is that the universe was created as a life support system for the earth. To quote Freeman Dyson, a renowned physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the strong anthropic principle implies that “the universe knew we were coming.”
A Russian scientist at the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow was researching the Big Bang theory in the late 1970’s. Professor Andrei Linde was thunderstruck the uniformity of the universe. For example, he discovered that the temperature of outer space is exactly the same everywhere, at 2.7 degrees C above absolute zero.
The Big Bang Theory says that is impossible. The universe as a whole has been cooling ever since it emerged from the fireball of the Big Bang. But there’s a problem: For all of it to reach the same temperature, different regions of the universe would have to exchange heat, just as ice cubes and hot tea have to meet to reach the uniform temperature of iced tea.
But as Einstein proved, nothing—including heat—can travel faster than the speed of light. In the conventional theory of the Big Bang, there simply hasn’t been enough time since the universe was born for every part of the cosmos to have connected with every other part and cooled to the same temperature.
So a new theory had to be invented — a phenomenon called ‘inflation.’ Inflation holds that regions of the universe that are currently separated by many billions of light-years were once close enough to each other that they could exchange heat and reach the same temperature before they were wildly super-sized. Aha!
The multiverse theory is born out of the ‘string theory’ which is so complex most mathematicians shake their heads. Discover Magazine quoted Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London.
“If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
The Apostle Paul addressed this exact dilemma:
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
The sun produces energy by fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. During that reaction, 0.007 percent of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy. If that percentage were lower, there could only hydrogen, if it were higher, there could be no hydrogen. In either case, water could not exist — and neither could we.
The early universe was delicately poised between runaway expansion and terminal collapse. Had the universe contained much more matter, additional gravity would have made it implode. If it contained less, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form.
Had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together to form galaxies. Had matter been clumpier, it would have condensed into black holes.
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:20)
So, here we have modern science learning that, “if you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” Why? Paul answers THAT, too.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
That’s precisely how it played out, too. “Omigosh! There is only one explanation! There MUST be a God! . . . No, wait! There’s got to be a better explanation! I know! The mulitverse theory.”
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .” (Romans 1:21-22)