Oh Justin! I don't have to tell you how "over my head" this is, but I very much appreciate the breakdown. I'm sure I've heard the term, multiverse, but certainly never understood what it meant until reading this article. Thank you.
The one part that stood out to me was in the "Hail Mary" section: "Anything outside our universe is, by definition, supernatural and therefore cannot be observed unless it somehow enters nature and reveals itself (as God has done)."
Now that makes total sense to me—although I never really understood the supernatural is this way before.
Thank you so much for reading this one and for the feedback. I know this isn’t a topic that resonates with many people, so I actually sat on this essay for a while.
It seems to be something that comes up in creation discussions every so often though, and I admittedly enjoy nerding out thinking through it, so I figured it was time to let it loose 😂.
Thanks for your thoughtful response! Agree to disagree is underated :)
Have you listened to talks by Sean M Carroll? He's one of the leading theoretical physicist in the world. He's debated with Christian about the multiverse and beginning of the universe etc. Might be worth checking out.
I admittedly haven't really dived deeply into Carroll’s work.
I generally avoid going too far into the physics because the argument I'm making is metaphysical rather than scientific. The metaphysical arguments apply equally to a universe or a multiverse.
It's possible Carroll addresses issues like infinite regress, but from what I gather, he, like many of his contemporaries, ultimately appeal to “brute facts” as the stopping point for explanation (see his essay Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?).
Personally, I don't find that philosophically satisfying.
That said, it's entirely possible that Carroll has strong arguments that I simply haven't encountered yet.
Thanks for writing this. As usual, I have some things that I agree and disagree with xD
Though I believe the Scripture affirms God created everything, therefore the universe must have a beginning, I don't think it's wise to argue it from Genesis 1:1. First, scholars have pointed out that it can be at least equally, if not better, translated as "When God began to create..." (similar structure is observed in other ANE creation account like enuma elish). Second, the creation account in Genesis is not a scientific description of the origin, but rather functional origin and theological claims - God brings order out of chaos. The scene God entered was not nothingness, it was tohu va bohu (unproductive and waste) and chaos (as inficated by the waters where the Holy Spirit was over). Therefore claiming it's the beginning of spacetime is not the best hermeneutics. Creation ex nihilo can be derived from other verses (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16).
Regarding the Big Bang model, whether it's the beginning of our observable universe or not, I think the most accurate way to say is "we don't know what happened at the Big Bang singularity" because our modern understanding of physics breaks down at that point. Could it be the beginning of spacetime? Definitely, but it might be a premature conclusion to claim it must be the beginning. FYI, this is not my claim, I am not a physicist. My Christian physics professor told me this.
I do agree that even if multiverse exists, it doesn't necessarily rule out God. :)
Thanks for the feedback Chi-Jing. I'll try and clarify each point.
Regarding Genesis 1:1: As you know, this is a foundational disagreement between us. I recognize that some scholars favor the translation "When God began to create," but the overwhelming majority of translations render it "In the beginning God created" because they understand the grammar and context to support that reading. In any case, we both agree that Genesis 1:1 is not the only passage that supports creation ex nihilo, so it is probably not a debate worth pursuing here since it is not central to the argument I was making.
Regarding the Big Bang model: I agree that our current understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity, and therefore science cannot tell us with certainty what, if anything, existed prior to it. My point is that any conclusion about what existed before the Big Bang is ultimately philosophical rather than scientific.
So even if there were some prior singularity or pre-Big Bang state, it too would require an explanation. If it began to exist, then it requires a cause. If it did not begin to exist, then we run into the problem of an infinite regress or an eternal, changeless state that cannot produce a temporal universe.
That's a major hurdle to overcome.
So, while I agree that we should be cautious not to overstate what the science allows, I also think the inference to the best explanation shows that it is reasonable to conclude that the known universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, given the cumulative scientific, philosophical, and scriptural evidence.
To your point, I could have been more precise by qualifying "universe" as the "known universe." But the philosophical argument still holds whether we kick the can to a singularity, pre-Big Bang state, multiverse, oscillating universe or something else.
But yes, we are in complete agreement that even if a multiverse exists, it would not eliminate the need for God. :)
I am going to have to sift through this one a few times, I think, but I love the Spiderman meme!
I get it! The article linked within (Can There Be More Than One God) gives some more foundation.
This is definitely not an easy one though 😂😂😂.
Oh Justin! I don't have to tell you how "over my head" this is, but I very much appreciate the breakdown. I'm sure I've heard the term, multiverse, but certainly never understood what it meant until reading this article. Thank you.
The one part that stood out to me was in the "Hail Mary" section: "Anything outside our universe is, by definition, supernatural and therefore cannot be observed unless it somehow enters nature and reveals itself (as God has done)."
Now that makes total sense to me—although I never really understood the supernatural is this way before.
You had my mind swirling...but in a good way:)
Thank you so much for reading this one and for the feedback. I know this isn’t a topic that resonates with many people, so I actually sat on this essay for a while.
It seems to be something that comes up in creation discussions every so often though, and I admittedly enjoy nerding out thinking through it, so I figured it was time to let it loose 😂.
Thanks for your thoughtful response! Agree to disagree is underated :)
Have you listened to talks by Sean M Carroll? He's one of the leading theoretical physicist in the world. He's debated with Christian about the multiverse and beginning of the universe etc. Might be worth checking out.
I agree haha!
I admittedly haven't really dived deeply into Carroll’s work.
I generally avoid going too far into the physics because the argument I'm making is metaphysical rather than scientific. The metaphysical arguments apply equally to a universe or a multiverse.
It's possible Carroll addresses issues like infinite regress, but from what I gather, he, like many of his contemporaries, ultimately appeal to “brute facts” as the stopping point for explanation (see his essay Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?).
Personally, I don't find that philosophically satisfying.
That said, it's entirely possible that Carroll has strong arguments that I simply haven't encountered yet.
Thanks for writing this. As usual, I have some things that I agree and disagree with xD
Though I believe the Scripture affirms God created everything, therefore the universe must have a beginning, I don't think it's wise to argue it from Genesis 1:1. First, scholars have pointed out that it can be at least equally, if not better, translated as "When God began to create..." (similar structure is observed in other ANE creation account like enuma elish). Second, the creation account in Genesis is not a scientific description of the origin, but rather functional origin and theological claims - God brings order out of chaos. The scene God entered was not nothingness, it was tohu va bohu (unproductive and waste) and chaos (as inficated by the waters where the Holy Spirit was over). Therefore claiming it's the beginning of spacetime is not the best hermeneutics. Creation ex nihilo can be derived from other verses (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16).
Regarding the Big Bang model, whether it's the beginning of our observable universe or not, I think the most accurate way to say is "we don't know what happened at the Big Bang singularity" because our modern understanding of physics breaks down at that point. Could it be the beginning of spacetime? Definitely, but it might be a premature conclusion to claim it must be the beginning. FYI, this is not my claim, I am not a physicist. My Christian physics professor told me this.
I do agree that even if multiverse exists, it doesn't necessarily rule out God. :)
Thanks for the feedback Chi-Jing. I'll try and clarify each point.
Regarding Genesis 1:1: As you know, this is a foundational disagreement between us. I recognize that some scholars favor the translation "When God began to create," but the overwhelming majority of translations render it "In the beginning God created" because they understand the grammar and context to support that reading. In any case, we both agree that Genesis 1:1 is not the only passage that supports creation ex nihilo, so it is probably not a debate worth pursuing here since it is not central to the argument I was making.
Regarding the Big Bang model: I agree that our current understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity, and therefore science cannot tell us with certainty what, if anything, existed prior to it. My point is that any conclusion about what existed before the Big Bang is ultimately philosophical rather than scientific.
So even if there were some prior singularity or pre-Big Bang state, it too would require an explanation. If it began to exist, then it requires a cause. If it did not begin to exist, then we run into the problem of an infinite regress or an eternal, changeless state that cannot produce a temporal universe.
That's a major hurdle to overcome.
So, while I agree that we should be cautious not to overstate what the science allows, I also think the inference to the best explanation shows that it is reasonable to conclude that the known universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, given the cumulative scientific, philosophical, and scriptural evidence.
To your point, I could have been more precise by qualifying "universe" as the "known universe." But the philosophical argument still holds whether we kick the can to a singularity, pre-Big Bang state, multiverse, oscillating universe or something else.
But yes, we are in complete agreement that even if a multiverse exists, it would not eliminate the need for God. :)
Great discussion as always.