The Multiverse Theory = the Atheists’ Concession Speech.

universe.jpgThe Multiverse Theory is the unscientific and anti-scientific idea that the exquisite design in our universe isn’t caused by an intelligent designer (i.e., God), but it exists merely because there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that appears to be designed.  Yes, it is laughable, but the continually growing evidence for design has forced people to come up with a non-God explanation.

Their theory is a self-contradictory attempt to move the goalposts.  Even if more than one universe existed, let alone an infinite number, that would just give greater evidence to the design theory.  More complex things means more evidence for a creator.

I think that those who know that support for Darwinism is crumbling use the Multiverse Theory as a placeholder until they can think of something which is at least a little more plausible.

See The Multiverse is the Poker Player’s Best Friend for a good illustration.  Here’s a sample:

A couple of years ago I trotted out the “highly improbable things happen all the time” meme our Darwinist friends use to such advantage at my home poker game.  For those who don’t recall, this is what happened.  I dealt myself a royal flush in spades for the first 13 hands.  When my friends objected I said, “Lookit, your intuition has led you astray. You are inferring design — that is to say that I’m cheating — simply on the basis of the low probability of this sequence of events.  But don’t you understand that the odds of me receiving 13 royal flushes in spades in a row are exactly the same as me receiving any other 13 hands.  In the game we are playing there are 2,598,960 possible hands.  The odds of receiving a straight flush in spades are therefore 1 in 2,598,960.  But the odds of receiving ANY hand are exactly the same, 1 in 2,598,960.  The odds of a series of events are the product of the odds of all of the events.  Therefore the odds of receiving 13 royal flushes in spades in a row are about 2.74^-71.  But the odds of receiving ANY series of 13 hands is exactly the same, 2.74^-71.”

Please read these words carefully:

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

It is foolish and rebellious to think that you get to define whether God exists and what He must be like.  Repent and believe while you still have time.  Eternity is a mighty long time to suffer for your foolish pride.  One day you will die and will be judged by your creator.  The standard won’t be your neighbor whom you think you are a little better than.  The standard will be the righteousness of Christ, and all of your secret (and not-so-secret), shameful sins will be compared to that standard.

The Good News: By God’s grace He adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

38 thoughts on “The Multiverse Theory = the Atheists’ Concession Speech.

      • You said his post was “a load of crap.” You don’t bother to tell us what’s wrong with it. When Neil poked a bit of fun at you, you said, “It deserves no more effort.”

        Apparently you don’t care about convincing anyone with rational, well-crafted arguments. You just want to throw mud. Color me shocked.

        In other words, you’re a liberal.

      • Okay, so here’s my opinion.
        I am not athiest, but I believe this theory is true. But it had to all start with God. Many astrophysicists believe this is true, with evidence. But I believe it all started with God.

      • Hi Austin — what evidence do they have for this? (You are right in that if there was more than one universe it wouldn’t solve the atheists’ problem, it would expand it), but I am not aware of any evidence for this view — just speculation.

  1. Great observation, but it’s even better when you consider the one-two punch that you can pull off by cheating at cards with a Darwinian atheist.

    Sure, you induce the man to conclude, against his stated beliefs, that increasingly improbable events point ever more strongly to intelligent design, but you do more than that.

    You make him express outrage toward your dishonest behavior, in defense of a moral law that he cannot explain in materialistic terms.

  2. I’ve heard about this “multiple universes” stuff before, but I have never looked into it. I have a number of questions about it. Actually, I take that back, I only have one question. After thinking about it for a minute I realized where the atheists are going with this – an infinite number of universes exist, therefore we just happen to be in the one (of the few or zero others) that just happened to unfold in a way that gave rise to simple lifeforms that eventually evolved into humans. My one question is this:

    Is the multiple-universe theory a scientific claim? That is, is there any way of proving it wrong? In fact, is there any observable or empirical evidence whatsoever that any other universes exist outside of this one?

    Or is it like you said – nothing more than idle speculation in an attempt to deflect the (mortal) blow of pointing out that the odds of evolutionary processes happening as theorized by Darwin…as being so astronomically remote as to be safely discounted?

      • It is certainly possible to prove it wrong. Of course you are the one who offers no evidence that it is wrong, you merely assert that it is. In the meantime scientists are continuing to do science – to predict and observe. Theories of the multiverse are a long way short of the scientific consensus right now, but the experimental and observational evidence of their potential is mounting. The argument that the universe is “designed” by something metaphysical is, by definition, of course the ultimate non-scientific assertion, completely untestable in any way.

      • Your comment sounds like blind faith. I’m going to stick with the evidence, scientific, historical, archaeological, cosmological, moral, etc.

        And it is fallacious to say that something can’t be true if it is untestable.

      • I didn’t say it wasn’t true. I said it was beyond science – that is what “metaphysical” means, after all. Which is exactly what you are claiming for the multiverse idea when there is much science which can be used to test the theories.

        So what “evidence, scientific, historical, archaelogical” and so on do you have that the multiverse is “anti-scientific”?

      • Hi — sorry that wasn’t clear on the forms of evidence. I was noting those in favor of God’s existence and pointing out how not all evidence is scientific. In fact, you couldn’t use science to prove that you should only trust scientific evidence (circular reference).

        Theories are swell, but the motive behind this one is obvious. An infinite number of universes, such that we just happen to be in one that appears to be designed? That makes a nice just-so story, but a pretty pathetic excuse to deny God and personal accountability.

        And again, the goalpost-shifting strategy backfires. More than one universe, let alone an infinite number, just makes the cosmological argument that much more compelling.

        Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

      • You are perfectly entitled to your views on religion. But to accuse scientists of being anti-science and then relying on a non-scientific argument as “proof” suggests you are not serious.

      • I don’t follow. The multiverse theory is not only anti-science but anti-common sense. Anyone who adheres to that is tipping their hand that they won’t let facts get in the way of their materialistic philosophy. And I’m quite serious about that.

      • You still have not produced a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that theories of the multiverse are “anti-scientific” – you merely assert that they are. Peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper shows that the scientific method is applied to the theories repeatedly. You may disagree with the theories but to declare them as anti-scientific and then to produce no evidence to back up your assertion shows you to either not understand the scientific process or to refuse to accept the validity of science full stop, or to be on a par with those who say the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are an “inside job”.
        What “facts” are there that are getting in the way – I would be really interested to know what you think these are, but you have produced a single one.
        To repeat: your religious views are not at issue here, what is is your slander of scientists as anti-scientific, a very serious charge that requires some evidence to be offered.
        Without that I think we are all entitled to regard you as a less than serious person.

      • Scientific method with the multiverse?! Ha! It is nothing more than peer-reviewed fairy tales, not falsifiable experiments. ID runs rings around it when it comes to the scientific method. I’ll continue to mock the multiverse more as articles about it come out, so stick around.

      • P.S. Since you live in a fantasy world where there are an infinite number of universes, such that every seemingly unbelievable scenario isn’t just possible but virtually certain, then you may want to join one of the countless ones that take your ideas seriously. Sadly, you’ve chosen one here where the random actions of chemicals have created life from non-life and evolved to the point where I think people who think the multiverse theory is true are beyond hope. Therefore, evolved beings like me don’t bother to post comments from people with such a loose grip on reality.

        But I know you won’t blame me or Christianity, because that would be self-mockery on your part. You’ll blame yourself for being in the wrong universe. Remember, in your view free choices are an illusion so I had no choice but to convert from atheism to Christianity because these random chemical reactions “make” me trust in the “facts” of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

        I hope you reconsider your foolish views. Eternity is a mighty long time.

      • Sorry, one more LOL. Saw on your blog your pro-fake marriage propaganda. You realize how foolish you look making moral claims like that, right? (That’s rhetorical; save your keystrokes.) Again, sorry you showed up in the wrong universe.

        Perhaps you should take a close look at history and how atheistic countries have also seen that even natural law points to male/female marriages. And how by nature and design male/female relationships produce the next generation.

        And consider how ridiculous the concept of “marriage equality” is in a materialistic worldview.

        When I meet an atheist who lives consistently with his worldview, he’ll be the first one.

      • A scientific claim is one for which there is a test for proving it wrong. For instance – “Humans will never set foot on the moon” is actually a scientific claim because that claim is provably false. There is a mountain of evidence that human beings have actually walked on the moon.

        Claims for which there is no test for proving it wrong – such as the claim that intelligent beings exist or that other universes exist – are speculation. They are not scientific claims. Though it would theoretically be possible to prove either of these claims correct, there is no way to prove them wrong. So first off, let’s get our terminology straight – and frankly it shouldn’t take an unenlightened fool like me to explain this to you.

        Second, you seem to allude to there being mountains of evidence that other universes do, in fact, exist. So, where is it?

        Neil’s contention is that there is no solid and reliable observations of any kind. The entire theory is nothing but a placeholder that evolutionary biologists are now relying on as a “placeholder,” in order to continue to make the claim that life evolved rather than having been created deliberately. You have not delivered any information that would undermine his contention. Instead, you’ve mocked him and asserted that the multiverse theory is “scientific” when it clearly is not.

      • Good points. That’s why I call it a concession speech. It is indeed a placeholder until they can come up with something a little less ridiculous. They know that Darwinism is crumbling, but realize that with all their propaganda control they have a decade or so before average people figure it out (maybe longer, sad to say — it take a long time to undo decades of lies).

      • I am sorry but you are wrong. By your claim relativity was not a scientific theory for around a decade after it was published because no experiment had been conducted on it.
        Scientists propose theories which are *then* tested experimentally. If we had very very powerful colliders we could test some strinbg theories (which are related to theories of the multiverse) now, but we do not and it is not likely we will ever have them, so hence we need to have better theories that are open to tests.
        I am not aware I have claimed there are “mountains” of evidence for multiverse theories but there is certainly some evidence – such as the nature of the cosmic miscrowave background, the accelerated expansion of the universe, the weakness of gravity – which *can* be explained in multiverse theories (there are more than one of these, of course). Nobody, though, is claiming this is definitive.
        As this is now degenerating into abuse from the blog owner here I am not sure I will return to comment further.

      • No, *I’m* sorry…because it is you who are wrong.

        A scientific claim is a claim for which there is a test proving it wrong. Period. That’s beyond dispute. If you don’t understand the definition of a term, you don’t have any business using it.

        In previous posts, you indeed claimed there was evidence for the multiverse theory. Whether there is “some” or “mountains” is irrelevant. I asked to see some, and instead you’ve returned to claim that the blogger is “abusing” you. I maintain that you’re playing word games because you don’t seem to be able to tell me what this evidence is.

      • Matt, your statement “A scientific claim is a claim for which there is a test proving it wrong.” is obviously drivel. If a proof exists that something is wrong then its not science.
        Presumably you mean a scientific claim is one that can be experimentally tested. And indeed it is so. The fact that the test has not yet be carried out does not invalidate the claim though, as was the case with Einstein and relativity.
        I did offer potential evidence for the multiverse – for instance the pattern of the cosmic microwave background offers strong support for the idea of the inflaton field which is incorporated in several theories of the multiverse.
        Why you claim I didn’t is beyond me except that it suggests you are not interested in debate.

      • Matt, your statement “A scientific claim is a claim for which there is a test proving it wrong.” is obviously drivel. If a proof exists that something is wrong then its not science.

        I meant exactly what I said. Testable…and being able to be proven wrong. A scientific theory, claim, or hypothesis is one which is capable of being proven wrong. This is well established. Why are you arguing with me about of the cornerstones of human knowledge and inquiry?

        I did offer potential evidence for the multiverse – for instance the pattern of the cosmic microwave background offers strong support for the idea of the inflaton field which is incorporated in several theories of the multiverse.

        “Potential evidence” is not real evidence. You of all people should know that. Either you have evidence which is the product of repeatable experiments and observations that reveal reproducible results…or you have wild speculation which (however reasonable) cannot and should not be confused with real science.

        We can reasonably disagree on what conclusions a piece of evidence should lead us to…but you keep going around and around with me on the most basic definition of terms. This stuff is beyond dispute. And I can’t believe you’re comparing the theories of relativity – the very foundation of modern physics and astronomy and cosmology – with hypotheses (and even that word is being generous) about “other universes” which have not been observed.

        Speaking of not being interested in debate….look in the mirror.

      • According to the multiverse theory, there could be a universe where everything has happened exactly as it has in this one, only at this point I see the wisdom of the multiverse theory and become a believer.

        This isn’t that universe.

      • But let’s say you’re right for a second. Let’s assert that a scientific claim is one that is not only falsifiable (not necessarily false, just falsifiable)…or one that can be proven or disproven via the scientific method.

        Does the Multiverse Theory pass or fail *that* definition of a scientific claim? Is it testable? Is there any reproducible experiment or observation that will yield consistent results?

        You yourself have referred to “potential” evidence. That’s not what I was asking about.

      • OK, “potential evidence” was the wrong term – “evidence that shows it potentially to be correct” is not: i.e. there is evidence for the multiverse, namely the pattern of the cosmic microwave radiation, however that evidence is open to other theoretically interpretations also and so further work needs to be done. Evidence from the LHC has already limited some multiverse theories (but not ruled them out either). In other words there is evidence and repeatable experiments that fall into the multiverse ground, it’s not a metaphysical idea per se.

  3. Actually, we could say that we believe in multiverses. It just that the other universe that we hold to holds angels, heaven, Satan, the saints that have gone before us and God’s throne. We might use that to say we believe in multiverses, but not the same that they believe in and we can tell them that shortly after their death, they will get introduced to part of the universe that they rejected as real.

  4. Nicely put. I just finished Dinesh D’Souza’s “God Forsaken, and he addresses the multiverse issue in one of his chapters. I like the sheer simplicity of the “royal flush” argument. Well done!

  5. The multiverse theory comes out of certain important renormalizations of physical constants in physical theories; in these theories initially there were multiple infinities present, but through clever manipulations they were moved into position to cancel each other out, resulting in finite but completely unknown values which were found experimentally. It has been observed that were any of them significantly different than we observe, life would be impossible.

    If it were impossible, no observer would be present to so note, so it is explainable by the *weak* anthropic principle, but this is an unsatisfying explanation. In search of an explanation other than “This probability-0 event happened, and as a result life could develop,” scientists have posited that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics could be expanded to apply to the first moments of the formation of the universe. Under one interpretation, this would only collapse to a universe in which it was eventually observed. Under others, one universe was created for every possible combination of constants, which explains why ours exists.

    It is in principle testable, but no means yet exists to do so. It is principally a philosophical position anyway, since the weak anthropic principle is perfectly sufficient.

  6. I would like just one of these multiverse proponents to explain how through only natural processes (no God allowed) the eye could have formed in THIS universe.

  7. I’m really split on this. On one hand it makes sense, on the other it’s totally ridiculous. In one universe I’m a cowboy riding a velociraptor? Why? In me. I would never do that. In another universe, I got the girl I wanted How? She did’nt like me end of story.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s