Multiverse

In the 1980s, a prediction was made that as the evidence for the design of the universe by a personal Creator increased, those who dislike the God of the Bible would turn to the Multiverse to try to dismiss a personal Creator. This prediction has come true. The Steady State theory of the universe (no beginning) was once popular as it did not need a Creator, like the one found in the Bible. In 1929, Edwin Hubble's work began disproving this theory. The Cosmic microwave background measurements ended the Steady State theory. Even after, many tried to hang on to the Steady State theory for years. Not only did the universe have a beginning, but the universe we now know is also fine-tuned to have life here on Earth (see Anthropic Principle page). The atheists’ appeal to the multiverse to avoid divine design is philosophically inconsistent. All multiverse speculations require a Creator to explain the existence of a multiverse. All multiverse models are speculative in that it is impossible for us to measure or physically detect anything beyond our universe. All multiverse speculations are subject to the space-time theorems. See the space-time page.

Multiverse Problem: 1) The Multiverse Explains Too Much. No experiment or observation could possibly falsify any of the Multiverse explanations. It is an appeal to infinite possibilities" fallacy and the philosophical concept of an "infinite regress. 2) There will never be any evidence for the Multiverse. Einstein proved that an observer in one universe can never detect any other physical universe. 3) The gambler's fallacy: If one flips a coin 20 times and each time it come up heads, the multiverse theory says that there are others flipping coins in an infinite number of universes. So the odds of this one coming up heads 20 times is correct. But it is more reasonable to say: The coin has two heads or is in some way designed to come up heads. As there is no evidence of coin flippers in other universes. 4) The multiverse is pure metaphysical – speculative and without evidence. If a scientist starts talking about the Multiverse, he is no longer a scientist; he is now a pastor for the Church of Atheism. Different Christian pastors have real evidence to support this physical universe's fine-tuning to a degree that it shows love and care for us.

Multiverse theories aren't theories-they're science fiction, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence. Multiverse is not testable or falsifiable. So, it is not science; there are no predictions to be made and no tests to be done.

Sir Roger Penrose a prominent skeptic of the "multiverse" theory, argues that it is unnecessary, lacks testable evidence, and fails to explain our perceived reality

Note: The Multiverse is the science of the gaps, since it has no evidence and is not testable.

See the Anthropic Principle page.

The Anthropic Principle is so proven. Then where is an Atheist to go? With the design of life and the complete universe from its creation (Big Bang) to today, all fine-tuned for life as the Bible stated thousands of years ago (3,500 BC to 90 AD (CE), where is an atheist to escape to ? 1) Abanding the law of cuase and effect, some say life cuase the univeres to be the way it it, this is a form of eastern mysticism. The universe has some kind of "mind" or consciousness. 2) The observer is the creation, again Abandoning the law of cause and effect, 3) There are many universes,

For more info, see the links to the two videos: Why Part 1 and Why Part 2

Ref:

• Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), 203.

• Helge Kragh, “Contemporary History of Cosmology and the Controversy over the Multiverse,” Annals of Science 66 (October 14, 2009): 529–51, doi:10.1080/00033790903047725.

• Paul Steinhart, “Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble,” Nature 510 (June 5, 2014): 9, doi:10.1038/510009a.

• Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 212–17.

• Jeffrey A. Zweerink, Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse? (Glendora, CA: Reasons to Believe), 2008

• George F. R. Ellis, “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?,” Scientific American, August 2011, 38–43.

• Mark P. Hertzberg et al., “Searching for Inflation in Simple String Theory Models: An Astrophysical Perspective,” Physical Review D, 76 (November 13, 2007): 103521.

• Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007): 179-90.

• Danny R, Faulkner, “The Newest Finding of the Expansion of the Universe,” (blog), Answers in Genesis (May 10, 2019), https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/newest-finding-on-expansion-of-universe/; Danny R. Faulkner, “A Recent Astronomy Conference,” (blog), Answers in Genesis (January 26, 2018), https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2018/01/26/recent-astronomy-conference/.

• Stephano Gariazzo et al., “Late-Time Interacting Cosmologies and the Hubble Constant Tension,” Physical Review D 106, no. 2 (July 2022): id. 023530, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023530; Rance Solomon, Garvita Agarwal, and Dejan Stojkovic, “Environment Dependent Electron Mass and the Hubble Constant Tension,” Physical Review D105, no. 10 (May 2022): id. 103536, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103536; Weiqiang Yang et al., “Emergent Dark Energy, Neutrinos and Cosmological Tensions,” Physics of the Dark Universe 31 (January 2021): id. 100762, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100762; Xiaolei Li and Arman Shafieloo, “Evidence for Emergent Dark Energy,” Astrophysical Journal 902, no. 1 (October 10, 2020): id. 58, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3d0; Maria G. Dainotti et al., “On the Hubble Constant Tension in the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample,” Astrophysical Journal 912, no. 2 (May 10, 2021): id. 150, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73;

• Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (July 10, 1998): 461, doi:10.1086/305846.

• Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski, “The Physics of Cosmic Acceleration,” Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 59 (November 2009): 397–429, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-010709-151330; Sean M. Carroll, “The Cosmological Constant,” Living Reviews in Relativity 4:1 (December 2001), doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1.

• Luke A. Barnes et al., “Galaxy Formation Efficiency and the Multiverse Explanation of the Cosmological Constant with EAGLE Simulations,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477 (April 2018): 3727–3743, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty846.

• Tomonori Totani et al., “Lethal Radiation from Nearby Supernovae Helps Explain the Small Cosmological Constant,” Astrobiology 19, no. 3 (January 2019): 126–131, doi:10.1089/ast.2018.1895.

• Tsvi Piran et al., “Cosmic Explosions, Life in the Universe, and the Cosmological Constant,” Physical Review Letters 116 (February 23, 2016): id. 081301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.081301

• Mauricio Cruz Reyes and Richard I. Anderson, “A 0.9% Calibration of the Galactic Cepheid Luminosity Scale Based on Gaia DR3 Data of Open Clusters and Cepheids,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 672 (April 2023): id. A85, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244775; Adam G. Riess et al., “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s-1 Mpc-1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophysical Journal Letters 934, no. 1 (July 20, 2022): id. L7, doi:10.3847/2042-8213/ac5c5b; Adam G. Riess et al., “Cluster Cepheids with High Precision Gaia Parallaxes, Low Zero-Point Uncertainties, and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry,” Astrophysical Journal 938, no. 1 (October 10, 2022): id. 36, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f24.

• Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 Results. VI. Cosmological Parameters,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (September 2020): id. A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910.

• Wendy L. Freedman et al., “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch*,” Astrophysical Journal 882, no. 1 (September 1, 2019): id. 34, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73.

• Gagandeep S. Anand et al., “Comparing Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distance Scales: An Independent Reduction of the Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program and the Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophysical Journal 932, no. 1 (June 10, 2022): id. 15, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac68df.

• D. Scolnic et al., “CATS: The Hubble Constant from Standardized TRGB and Type Ia Supernova Measurements,” submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters April 14, 2023, eprint arXiv:2304.06693, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.06693.

• Naser Mostaghel, “Effects of Time Dilation on the Measurements of the Hubble Constant,” International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 8, no. 4 (December 2018): 339–346, doi:10.4236/ijaa.2018.84024; Richard I. Anderson, “Towards a 1% Measurement of the Hubble Constant: Accounting for Time Dilation in Variable-Star Light Curves,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 631 (November 2019): id. A165, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936585.