Can a multiverse disprove God ?

1. A multiverse would not disprove God

Before we start exploring what’s wrong with a multiverse, we notice that if scientists could confirm that there were multiple universes, this would not disprove the existence of a creator God. What it would do (or might do) is to take away one argument for God’s reality – the argument from fine-tuning. It would still leave open the question of whether there is a God.

This is why a scientist and theologian like David Wilkinson can be relaxed about the possibility of a multiverse:

‘I don’t worry about a God who creates many universes. The God who creates this universe with a hundred billion stars in each of a hundred billion galaxies is big enough for me to try to struggle with as a concept.  A few more billion galaxies wouldn’t be too worrying to me. It’s just a few noughts at the end of what is already a very long number.’

2. There is no evidence for a multiverse

The biggest single objection to the idea of multiple universes is that there is (at least, so far) no evidence for it. Richard Dawkins says that

‘Scientific belief is based on publicly checkable evidence.’[1]

But he also advances multiple universes as an explanation for cosmic fine tuning, without any supporting evidence.  This is self-contradictory.

As Rodney Holder says:

‘Curiously enough someone like Richard Dawkins says ‘no, I believe in a multiverse. That will explain [the fine tuning].’ On the other hand, Richard Dawkins tells you that you should only believe things on the basis of evidence. Well, there’s a massive contradiction there within the thought of Richard Dawkins.’...

3. A multiverse undermines scientific inquiry

The idea of a multiverse undermines all scientific inquiry: for example, imagine you see some highly improbable event (all the molecules of air in the room suddenly arrange themselves in one corner, leaving a vacuum everywhere else). Well, so what? We live in a multiverse. Even the most unlikely of events are bound to happen somewhere. The problem is that you can use a multiverse to explain away absolutely anything. This has the potential to put a stop to scientific inquiry.

4. Even a multiverse may not be able to account for fine tuning

We instinctively feel that if there are enough universes, anything is possible. This is a good example of our instincts letting us down:

Even if scientists did discover conclusive evidence for a multiverse, this would not necessarily be enough to account for the fine-tuning. As John Polkinghorne says:

Simply by having a large or indeed an infinite array of universes you couldn’t be sure that you’d get one that was right for life.  I mean, for example, there are an infinite number of even numbers, but never in that collection will you find a number with the property of oddness.  So it’s not clear that having an infinite collection means you’ve got everything you might want.

So an infinite number of universes may not be enough to solve the fine-tuning problem.

5. A multiverse may just push the problem up a level

If the existence of a multiverse could somehow be proved, this may just push the problem of fine-tuning up a level: we would still need to ask why the laws that govern the multiverse produce such a massive range of diversity as to guarantee that complicated life like ours is possible in at least one universe?

6. The Multiverse is a very extravagant idea...

         ( To finish reading this article and for further discussions please click the following links.)

Is a multiverse a better explanation than God for cosmic fine tuning?

   bethinking.org - Science + Christianity - Fine Tuning the Multiverse Theory