Monotheists Mutually Muzzled by Multiverse?


By ‘muzzled’, I refer to the capacity of the below to eliminate one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God, appealed to by monotheistic Christian and Muslims alike – the ‘fine-tuning’ argument. I just needed a verb beginning with ‘m’…

I must confess off the bat – I have not listened to this talk, and probably won’t for a while/ever due to time constraints. But I thought this was worth sharing here, as it’s an issue that Muslims and Christians have an equal interest in.

‘Unbelievable? Who’s afraid of the Multiverse? Jeff Zweerink & Skydive Phil’

Jeff is a Christian astrophysicist from Reasons to Believe, and Phil is an atheist. Both believe there is scientific evidence for a multiverse. It doesn’t surprise me that Phil says this, but it does that Jeff holds to it – especially because initially I might expect his bias (as a Christian apologist) would be to deny a multiverse (because it is a potential ‘get-out’ of the fine-tuning problem). While I don’t have time to listen to this talk, it makes me suspect there may be more evidence for the multiverse than is often appreciated…

I should add that there are other arguments for God’s existence (e.g. resurrection of Jesus from the dead), including scientific ones (e.g. the origin of life/abiogenesis, that the universe had a beginning). But if any monotheists are persuaded by Jeff and Phil, they may need to adapt their apologetic accordingly, and leave out the (traditional) fine-tuning argument. I would note however what Justin Brierley says in the comments (in response to Ed) – Jeff argues that a multiverse actually raises a whole new problem for the atheist…

Categories: Islam

6 replies

  1. By ‘multiverse’ I presume Zweerink is referring to the idea of the landscape-type multiverse predicted by theories such as string theory and not referring to the ‘Many Worlds’ interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

    If he is indeed referring to the former, it must be borne in mind that most straightforward inflationary models do indeed predict the existence of a ‘multiverse’ but one where the fundamental constants of physics are the same everywhere and so can’t be used as an argument against supposed ‘fine tuning’ of these constants.


  2. Some folks have way too much spare time


  3. ” I should add that there are other arguments for God’s existence (e.g. resurrection of Jesus from the dead),”
    If that event had really happened, I’d have no problem to accept that as an evidence.
    That Allah resurrects his (creations) from the death is really a good one.

    What Allah tells us about the resurrection on his book? What are the examples he gave ?
    Translation for Surah (2:259)
    ” Or [consider such an example] as the one who passed by a township which had fallen into ruin. He said, “How will Allah bring this to life after its death?” So Allah caused him to die for a hundred years; then He revived him. He said, “How long have you remained?” The man said, “I have remained a day or part of a day.” He said, “Rather, you have remained one hundred years. Look at your food and your drink; it has not changed with time. And look at your donkey; and We will make you a sign for the people. And look at the bones [of this donkey] – how We raise them and then We cover them with flesh.” And when it became clear to him, he said, “I know that Allah is over all things competent.”

    Translation for Surah (39:42)
    ” Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. *Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought* ”

    Translation for Surah (50:9,10,11)
    ” And We have sent down blessed rain from the sky and made grow thereby gardens and grain from the harvest
    And lofty palm trees having fruit arranged in layers
    As provision for the servants, and We have given life thereby to a dead land. *Thus is the resurrection* ”

    Translation for Surah (16:65)
    ” And Allah has sent down rain from the sky and given life thereby to the earth after its lifelessness. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who listen.”


  4. LOL Atheist Scientists are funny. They look at the universe and realize it is finally tuned for life, not just life in the universe but finally tuned for life on this planet. They realize there are three possibilities.

    1. A creator God.
    2. Random Chance
    3. A multi verse.

    They laugh and scoff at the first one. Say its preposterous just can not be. The second one they find equally as preposterous, so instead they come up with the Multi Verse.

    Now here are some fun facts about this Multi Verse theory.

    Scientists admit that we will never ever be able to observe directly or even indirectly any other universe but ours.

    We will not be able to pass or receive any information between the different “verses”

    We will never be able to say “here is where are universe ends and here is where another one begins.

    The math (or maths) behind this theory is not elegant, it is not simple as in the form of a reduced equation. Instead it is rough and jagged, often leading to dead ends that are ignored. In other words the math itself would be rejected if it was for any other theory.

    So the atheist scientist rejects the notion that God created this universe finally tuned, and they reject that this universe came about finally tuned by random chance.

    Instead the embrace a theory that says there are multiple universes which we can not observe directly or indirectly, universes where we can not pass or receive information from, universe where the laws of physics are different so life can not exist, all so a RANDOM universe this universe can be finally tuned for life.

    Yah sounds like that have a lot of blind faith to me.

    Don’t believe me here are a few short video’s.

    Oh I forgot to mention “Dark Energy” and Dark Matter” In the words of a few scientists “Any time you hear a scientist say Dark Anything, realize they call it dark because its something they do not understand.”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I would recommend that everyone who believes that the Multiverse is a defeater for the fine tuning argument familiarise themselves with the work of an upcoming Christian Philosopher named Max Andrews based at Edinburgh University, his work (both M.A and currently Doctoral) revolves around this topic largely:

    His personal blog is found here:

    Liked by 1 person

  6. 1. There are severe probabilistic issues with using fine tuning to confirm the multiverse. Coming back to the dice- if you don’t know whether there are many rolls or one roll, and you roll a double six, the specific fact that “this roll is a double six” does not confirm a many rolls hypothesis, because this more specific fact, compared to “some roll is a double six”, is equally likely on a many rolls hypothesis vs a single roll hypothesis.This extends to the multiverse- the specific fact that “this universe is fine tuned for life” is equally likely on a single universe vs a multiple universe hypothesis. As other universes are unobservable, this is the most specific fact we can know, and cannot confirm the multiverse. Roger white advances this, in what is known as the inverse gamblers fallacy.
    2. Boltzmann brains were discussed and interestingly, it was argued that the multiverse makes it easier to solve this problem. It really depends on the type of Boltzmann brain- one type is a quantum fluctuation and I assume (fallibly) that guth and phil talk about this. But there’s also a Boltzmann brain which results from thermal fluctuations of energy and as Robin Collins has shown in a recent paper, these BBs occur in every universe of a multiverse, including non fine tuned ones, meaning that they vastly dominate embodied agents. That means that either the multiverse makes false predictions about our universe- we should be BBs and we aren’t- or we have an undercutting defeater for everything we believe. Amusingly, WLC, who was bashed by phil, advanced this against notable cosmologist Sean Carroll and Carroll didn’t even understand the objection.
    3. Inflationary superstring multiverses require fine tuning!!!!!! This cannot be overemphasised- robin Collins, Max Andrews and luke Barnes continually emphasise this, because you need a particular kind of multiverse (Collins uses the analogy of a breadmaker and how that needs fine tuning to create bread correctly) showing lots of fine tuned aspects. One calculation from Sean Carroll is that inflation occurs in 1 in 10 to the 66 million cosmological histories. That’s incomprehensibly small. It’s what luke Barnes calls a “cane toad solution”- you simply push the fine tuned bump in the rug elsewhere, back to inflation.
    Phils also incorrect that string theory isn’t necessary to ensure variation. suppose that all universes contain embodied agents. Why suppose that the brute fact of the multiverse is that it falls into the life permitting range? Why shouldn’t they all be dead instead? Indeed, this seems incomprehensibly more plausible.
    If so, string theory doesn’t contain anywhere near the experimental confirmation- indeed it’s the much more widely disparaged aspect of the multiverse, as untestable, and the like- penrose called it a collection of hopes on unbelievable. It’s more necessary fine tuning which requires explanation.
    4. Don’t listen to scientists who tell you to leave it to the scientists- very frustrating comment from Jeff. The philosophers might just have something to say. Indeed the simplicity, coherence and comprehensiveness of God as an explanation far beats an inflationary superstring multiverse (whuch also fails to explain the origin of protein folds, the Cambrian explosion, moral obligations, moral knowledge, rationality in general, the origin of language, the scientific discoverability of the universe and so on…)


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: