When people insist that science is the only answer to our important questions, I’m quick to remind them that only about 20% of scientific pronouncements are actual, repeatable, demonstrable, reliable scientific laws.
In addition, in the past 30 years, there has been a crisis in scientific circles of researchers eager to explore the scientific findings of yet other experimenters, only to come up short. It’s been shown that more than two-thirds of published scientific results can’t be reproduced. This is highly problematic because replicability is the hallmark of the scientific method. But in these days in which so many studies are funded by special-interest groups and other people hoping to cash in on the newest “scientific advancement,” one can’t automatically presume that all scientists have anyone’s interest at heart other than those of their own wallets.
Two popular notions more often discussed by science fiction writers than by scientists are Multiverse Theory (MT), which postulates an infinite number of universes, and the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis (MWH), which insists that every time we make a decision that excludes other possibilities, an entire universe is spawned in the process.
To be clear, there is zero proof of either notion, and they’re promulgated only by a tiny handful of scientists.
Multiverse Theory (MT)
In their attempt at explaining away our fine-tuning, anthropic universe, atheists have offered a multiverse of madness. In his 2005 The Road to Reality, Oxford University’s Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of our universe’s low-entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 to the 10 raised to the 10 power which is then raised yet again to the 123rd power. That’s 1,000 followed by a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeroes. If you used every atom in the known universe to represent a zero, you wouldn’t have nearly enough of them to fully express this number.
If our universe were but one among a multiplicity of universes, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. As it is, we have yet to discover the outer reaches of our universe.
Further, if our universe were but one instance in a vast array of universes, we ought to be observing extraordinary events like functioning perpetual motion machines, people giving birth to puppies, talking whales, and subatomic particles popping into and out of existence by random collisions. In short, we would be living in a magical universe that would make Harry Potter’s universe seem like a documentary.
But no matter how hard we wish, everything we witness in our present universe follows the rules of logic and science. A Bizarro universe is by far more likely than a “law-and-order” universe but none can be located. We must therefore conclude that ours is the only universe on the block.
Multiple World Hypothesis (MWH)
Multiple Worlds Hypothesis (MWH) is the idea that each of our multi-choice decisions results in the spawning of yet other universes. I call this the “Tinkerbell Theory” — that our decision to “believe” (and clap our hands) will magically create a new universe complete with its own 13.6 billion-year history.
The silliness of MWH is apparent. Those who hold this idea are admitting that it took the entire Big Bang and subsequent collapse of a wave function to produce our seemingly infinite universe, anthropically fine-tuned to make human life possible. In addition, every time someone makes a decision such as flipping a coin, entire universes are likewise coming out of nowhere.
If MWH were possible, it would render the Second Rule of Thermodynamics null and void. Every time I chose to use one word as opposed to another in this article, I’ve created an entire universe without the bother of being omnipotent or omniscient. This is silly conjecture. Or did I just create another universe by choosing the phrase “silly conjecture” instead of “metaphysical meanderings” in the above sentence?
Did my decision to use one phrase automatically create its own cosmological past as well? And from where exactly is all of this matter and energy coming? We are asked to believe that this “stuff” upon which a universe exists comes into existence on a whim? This is nonsense.
The Gap of the Godless
I’ve never advocated for Ockham’s Razor but it’s good to bring it up here. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. These MT and MWH theories violate this principle: Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate (“Do not multiply entities beyond necessity”). When people rely upon an infinite number of secret, invisible, mysterious and undiscoverable universes to explain our exquisitely fine-tuned universe, it’s enough to make a Franciscan friar like William of Ockham spin in his grave.
There’s simply too much mathematical evidence that God exists. Materialist atheists are scrambling to make sense of a universe that shouldn’t be here. They decry Christians who cling to the “God of the Gaps” to explain things we can’t explain using science, but atheists scramble to use silly, unscientific conjecture to explain such incongruences as our anthropic universe. They advocate for the “Gap of the Godless.”
If any atheists think I’m wrong, they may rest assured that this is the only universe in which I am perceived as wrong because in all of the other universes, every atheist has already converted to Catholicism upon reading this article. Prove me wrong, boys — but this time, stick to logic and science.