The Multiverse may not remove the need for a Personal Creator
Philosophers come face to face with God
Scientists agree that the universe was in a hot dense period approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Everything we have observed from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) to the expansion of the universe to the distribution of light elements supports this hypothesis. The Big Bang was one of the most spectacular discoveries of the 20th century, blindsiding many scientists who had concluded that the universe was static and eternal.
Its original formulation, however, used Einstein’s theory to show that, if the universe is of equal density everywhere and has no biases in any particular direction, then from its expansion we can work backward to an infinitely dense singularity from which all matter and energy emerged.
This idea quickly runs into problems, however. The CMB is too highly correlated with itself. The universe is also remarkably flat spatially. What explains this flatness?
Inflationary theory was developed to explain these problems. The idea is that the universe before it was full of matter and radiation was full of inflationary energy. This energy caused it to inflate up until some point where that energy spontaneously converted into matter and radiation, leading to the structures we see in the universe today.
This idea led to the idea of Eternal Inflation where we exist within a vast multiverse where universes pop into existence all the time from false vacuum (energy states that are higher than true vacuum, which is nothingness).
It is incorrect to assume that Eternal Inflation eliminates the need for a Prime Mover to create the universe because it is eternal and therefore does not need a cause. Its own creator says it must have a beginning.
The idea of eternal inflation raises several other problems, and various solutions are being considered, but what I want to talk about in this post is whether Eternal Inflation or other Multiverse ideas are better ideas than that of an uncaused intelligent being, God, if you will, creating the universe.
I’ll first start from the Kalam Cosmological Argument, a product of Islamic Medieval Scholasticism and one of the best arguments for the need for a cause to the universe, which, stated very simply, is this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
#1 is sometimes incorrectly written as “Everything has a cause” but it is carefully worded to accord those things with a cause to those things that have a beginning. If something does not have a beginning, therefore, it does not need a cause. Note that even subatomic particles, which “pop” into existence in particle accelerators, have a cause, i.e., the matter and energy from which they emerge.
An Atheist would not dispute this syllogism, nor would a Theist. The difference between them would be in how to resolve the cause. Atheists tend to go in two directions here (usually both at once):
An eternal multiverse is a reasonable cause to the universe.
We don’t know what caused the universe to begin. Therefore it is unreasonable to come to any conclusion.
#2 unfortunately ignores philosophical arguments completely, which are necessary to form any reasonable understanding of the universe. Consider that concepts like Rationality, Logic, and the existence of Science itself, i.e., that evidence can tell us something about the universe, are philosophical, not scientific. You must adopt some kind of framework on faith because you cannot prove it with evidence (otherwise you’d be assuming what you are trying to prove). Saying that science just “works” is a cop-out. At best, you could argue that rationality is an illusion that has been useful to us in our evolutionary process, but again, why would you trust your brain if rational thought is an illusion? Why bother reading this article if you don’t believe in logic? Isn’t it all just words? If you believe this, read no further.
