7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God: Part 2

Bubble universes artwork #2

Part two (Part one)

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The “multiverse” (i.e., the existence of many Universes) has been proposed as a substitute for God to explain the origin of our finely-tuned Universe. The multiverse, however, while not having evidence of its own to substantiate it, also hinges on other theories that have no evidence to support them. It is unscientific by definition. Further, the multiverse does not answer the ultimate question of where everything came from; it admits that naturalism is not true; and ultimately, tacitly admits the existence of God.

Problem #4: Unscientific

As with inflation theory, the multiverse is untestable and unobservable, making it unscientific. Astrophysicist and Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University Adam Riess and astrophysicist Mario Livio, previously at the Space Telescope Science Institute, stated: “Even just mentioning the multiverse idea…raises the blood pressure of some physicists. The notion seems hard to swallow and harder to test—perhaps signifying the end of the classical scientific method as we know it. Historically this method has required that hypotheses should be directly testable by new experiments or observations.” But observation, direct testing, and experimentation are not possible with the multiverse. Ellis, in apparent frustration, admitted:

Similar claims [about the existence of multiverses—JM] have been made since antiquity by many cultures. What is new is the assertion that the multiverse is a scientific theory, with all that implies about being mathematically rigorous and experimentally testable. I am skeptical about this claim. I do not believe the existence of those other universes has been proved—or ever could be. Proponents of the multiverse, as well as greatly enlarging our conception of physical reality, are implicitly redefining what is meant by “science”…. The various “proofs,” in effect, propose that we should accept a theoretical explanation instead of insisting on observational testing. But such testing has, up until now, been the central requirement of the scientific endeavor, and we abandon it at our peril. If we weaken the requirement of solid data, we weaken the core reason for the success of science over the past centuries.

Krauss noted that “for many people, multiverses…are indications of how far fundamental physics may appear to be diverging from what is otherwise considered to be sound empirical science.” Regarding string theory, inflation, and the multiverse theory, Ellis and Silk insisted, “We agree with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: post-empirical science is an oxymoron…. In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.” Buchanan, writing in New Scientist about the multiverse, bewilderedly said, …


image credit: Artwork based on photo by Anthony