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 think bringing science into a cosmological argument is ultimately distracting.
While in the 20th century many physicists thought the Big Bang Theory implied a beginning to the universe, in the 20th century many physicists are unsure.
68% of surveyed physicists think the universe evolved from a hot dense state. What happened before that state? Who knows! Are we alone in the universe? Who knows! Saying that science affirmed that the universe had a beginning is like affirming that there are no intelligent aliens in the universe. We just currently don't have the resources to affirm that.
Scientists propose multiverse theories not to avoid theism (do they even think about theism when doing astronomy?) but when they think it makes sense from particular ideas. For example, there is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The multiverse is much more relevant to the fine-tuning argument.
Plantinga's ontological argument doesn't work. Consider a "possible" world in which all creatures suffer horribly forever, and their suffering increases as time passes. This world is incompatible with God's goodness. But if this godless world is possible, then it follows that God cannot be real, because He is supposed to be in all possible worlds.
If there is an endless chain of universes giving birth to more universes, why would it be impossible for our universe to arrive? Label our universe "0". Then the previous universe is "-1". The universe before that is "-2". The universe before that is "-3". And so on.
I offer these thoughts not to tear down but to point toward better cosmological and ontological arguments.
Instead of William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument, go for a modified version of Alexander Pruss's and Rob Koon's argument from causal finitism. Another great cosmological argument comes from Samuel Clarke / Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz / William Rowe / Joshua Rasmussen: reasoning from the causal dependent beings. Anselm's argument from ontological pluralism > Plantinga's ontological argument.
Thanks for reading. I would disagree with you on your premise, as I think it misunderstands the argument. Science is discussed to show how modern discovery continues to affirm the underlying conclusions of the Cosmological Argument.
Many believe science disproves the classical arguments, but it does not. That can’t really be demonstrated without first discussing the science, however. One could certainly go deeper, but that is not the point of this lay article.
On the multiverse, I recognize that it can be invoked without the motivation being to avoid theism. The point I am making is that the theory can be used to avoid God as the cause raised by the Big Bang. A cause is a much easier explanation than denying causality altogether. Invoking a multiverse can serve as that cause.
As for Plantinga, I believe you’ve taken my argument beyond what I am using it for. I’m not presenting it as a proof of God, but to demonstrate the logical issue created by the idea of infinite worlds. This is actually why I state the "argument if often ignored in favor of stronger ones."
Lastly, if our universe is labeled 0, with -1, -2, -3… extending infinitely into the past, that doesn’t eliminate infinite regress. It simply labels theoretical members within a theoretical infinity. The objection is not that we can’t assign numbers to a portion of a sequence, but whether an actual infinite sequence of dependent events can be traversed.
The animation shows the problem. If there were an infinite amount of dependent universes before ours, then an infinite amount would need to have been created to reach ours. Numbering them from a specifically chosen point doesn’t really solve the logical challenge.
Lastly, in terms of argument “superiority,” I find WLC’s argument perfectly sufficient. However, I think the vertical argument formulated by Aquinas is much stronger, but that leads me to the intended audience. These articles are written for lay readers and are meant to make philosophical arguments accessible. If I attempted to exhaust every academic objection, I would be writing books, which I really don’t care to do.
Much easier to believe that scientific discoveries affirm the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the 20th century.
Consider the following passages from Quentin Smith's 1992 article A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence.
"The advent of big bang cosmology in this century was a watershed for theists. Since the times of Copernicus and Darwin, many theists regarded science as hostile to their world-view and as requiring defence and retrenchment on the part of theism. But big bang cosmology in effect reversed this situation . . .
The theistic implications seemed so clear and exciting that even Pope Pius XII was led to comment that ‘True science to an ever increasing degree discovers God as though God w ere waiting behind each door opened by science. . .
The response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively weak, indeed, almost invisible. An uncomfortable silence seems to be the rule when the issue arises among nonbelievers or else the subject is briefly and epigrammatically dismissed with a comment to the effect that ‘science has no relevance to religion.’"]
Given scientific discoveries in the 21st century, big bang cosmology is no longer seen as supporting the beginning of the whole Universe. And it doesn't need to for a cosmological argument to be good.
What's wrong with an infinite regress? I believe an actual infinite sequence of dependent events can be traversed; even granting with this assumption, we can generate a cosmological argument.
Here is how. Alexander Pruss has a cannon ball thought experience. At t = 0, the cannon fires its ball. At t = 1, the ball lands on the ground. Why was the ball there t = 1? Because the ball had a particular momentum and position at t = ½. And why was the ball there at t = ½? Because the cannon had a particular momentum and position at t = ¼? And so on. Note that we can give an actual infinite sequence of dependent events that was transferred by dividing time infinitely. But the problem is that we don’t have a complete explanation of why the ball landed on the ground without referring to the cannon itself.
The state of the ball represents a causal dependent being. We have an infinite regress of causal dependent beings. There is no first causal dependent being. And we can renumber the times to correspond to an infinite past: (t = 1/2 represents x = -1, t = 1/4 represents x = -2, where x is 0 represent this current year and the negative numbers are for previous years.) And the cannon represents the causal independent being, which is God. And we can still arrive at the present despite having an infinite chain of universes in our past.
Yep, this is basically a Zeno-style sequence. There are mathematically infinite divisions between two defined points.
But an infinitely divisible interval defined between two finite points is not the same as an actual infinite sequence of dependent events with no first event.
In your example, the cannonball firing ironically demonstrates a beginning. The infinite regress in question assumes there is no defined beginning. That’s much harder to solve
Okay, what do you think about Alexander Pruss’s Grim Reaper scenario?
Assume the past is infinite. Fred is asleep at 11 PM during the last day of 2026. Each Reaper gets assigned a unique number. A Reaper appears before Fred between 11 PM and 12 AM and kills him only if he is still alive. And let’s stipulate that Fred only dies that day if a Reaper kills him.
Reaper #1 set its schedule during 1 BC to go to Fred’s room on Dec 31, 2026 and kill him at 11:30 PM. Reaper #2 set its schedule during 2 BC to go to Fred’s room on Dec 31, 2026 and kill him at 11:15 PM. Reaper #3 set its schedule during 3 BC to go to Fred’s room in Dec 31, 2026 and kill him at 11:07.30 PM. And so on.
So is Fred alive in 2027? No, because if he is still alive by the time Reaper #1 visits him, then he should be killed after 11:30 PM in 2026. But if Fred dead in 2027, which Reaper killed him? It couldn’t be Reaper #1, because Reaper #2 would have killed Fred before Reaper #1 could have. And it couldn’t have been Reaper #2, because Reaper #3 would have killed Fred before Reaper 2 could have. And so on.
So Fred is alive in 2027 because no Reaper kills Fred between 11 PM and 12 AM on Dec 31, 2026. But Fred is also dead in 2027 because at least Reaper #1 would have killed him if Fred was still alive at 11:30 PM.
Given the contradiction, we should reject an infinite past? There was no Reaper who was the first to visit Fred after all. A contradiction is stronger than pointing to the weirdness of an infinite regress.
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.
I think bringing science into a cosmological argument is ultimately distracting.
While in the 20th century many physicists thought the Big Bang Theory implied a beginning to the universe, in the 20th century many physicists are unsure.
https://arxiv.org/html/2605.11058v1
68% of surveyed physicists think the universe evolved from a hot dense state. What happened before that state? Who knows! Are we alone in the universe? Who knows! Saying that science affirmed that the universe had a beginning is like affirming that there are no intelligent aliens in the universe. We just currently don't have the resources to affirm that.
Scientists propose multiverse theories not to avoid theism (do they even think about theism when doing astronomy?) but when they think it makes sense from particular ideas. For example, there is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The multiverse is much more relevant to the fine-tuning argument.
Plantinga's ontological argument doesn't work. Consider a "possible" world in which all creatures suffer horribly forever, and their suffering increases as time passes. This world is incompatible with God's goodness. But if this godless world is possible, then it follows that God cannot be real, because He is supposed to be in all possible worlds.
If there is an endless chain of universes giving birth to more universes, why would it be impossible for our universe to arrive? Label our universe "0". Then the previous universe is "-1". The universe before that is "-2". The universe before that is "-3". And so on.
I offer these thoughts not to tear down but to point toward better cosmological and ontological arguments.
Instead of William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument, go for a modified version of Alexander Pruss's and Rob Koon's argument from causal finitism. Another great cosmological argument comes from Samuel Clarke / Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz / William Rowe / Joshua Rasmussen: reasoning from the causal dependent beings. Anselm's argument from ontological pluralism > Plantinga's ontological argument.
Thanks for reading. I would disagree with you on your premise, as I think it misunderstands the argument. Science is discussed to show how modern discovery continues to affirm the underlying conclusions of the Cosmological Argument.
Many believe science disproves the classical arguments, but it does not. That can’t really be demonstrated without first discussing the science, however. One could certainly go deeper, but that is not the point of this lay article.
On the multiverse, I recognize that it can be invoked without the motivation being to avoid theism. The point I am making is that the theory can be used to avoid God as the cause raised by the Big Bang. A cause is a much easier explanation than denying causality altogether. Invoking a multiverse can serve as that cause.
As for Plantinga, I believe you’ve taken my argument beyond what I am using it for. I’m not presenting it as a proof of God, but to demonstrate the logical issue created by the idea of infinite worlds. This is actually why I state the "argument if often ignored in favor of stronger ones."
Lastly, if our universe is labeled 0, with -1, -2, -3… extending infinitely into the past, that doesn’t eliminate infinite regress. It simply labels theoretical members within a theoretical infinity. The objection is not that we can’t assign numbers to a portion of a sequence, but whether an actual infinite sequence of dependent events can be traversed.
The animation shows the problem. If there were an infinite amount of dependent universes before ours, then an infinite amount would need to have been created to reach ours. Numbering them from a specifically chosen point doesn’t really solve the logical challenge.
Lastly, in terms of argument “superiority,” I find WLC’s argument perfectly sufficient. However, I think the vertical argument formulated by Aquinas is much stronger, but that leads me to the intended audience. These articles are written for lay readers and are meant to make philosophical arguments accessible. If I attempted to exhaust every academic objection, I would be writing books, which I really don’t care to do.
Either way, I appreciate the thoughtful comment.
Much easier to believe that scientific discoveries affirm the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the 20th century.
Consider the following passages from Quentin Smith's 1992 article A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence.
"The advent of big bang cosmology in this century was a watershed for theists. Since the times of Copernicus and Darwin, many theists regarded science as hostile to their world-view and as requiring defence and retrenchment on the part of theism. But big bang cosmology in effect reversed this situation . . .
The theistic implications seemed so clear and exciting that even Pope Pius XII was led to comment that ‘True science to an ever increasing degree discovers God as though God w ere waiting behind each door opened by science. . .
The response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively weak, indeed, almost invisible. An uncomfortable silence seems to be the rule when the issue arises among nonbelievers or else the subject is briefly and epigrammatically dismissed with a comment to the effect that ‘science has no relevance to religion.’"]
Given scientific discoveries in the 21st century, big bang cosmology is no longer seen as supporting the beginning of the whole Universe. And it doesn't need to for a cosmological argument to be good.
What's wrong with an infinite regress? I believe an actual infinite sequence of dependent events can be traversed; even granting with this assumption, we can generate a cosmological argument.
Here is how. Alexander Pruss has a cannon ball thought experience. At t = 0, the cannon fires its ball. At t = 1, the ball lands on the ground. Why was the ball there t = 1? Because the ball had a particular momentum and position at t = ½. And why was the ball there at t = ½? Because the cannon had a particular momentum and position at t = ¼? And so on. Note that we can give an actual infinite sequence of dependent events that was transferred by dividing time infinitely. But the problem is that we don’t have a complete explanation of why the ball landed on the ground without referring to the cannon itself.
The state of the ball represents a causal dependent being. We have an infinite regress of causal dependent beings. There is no first causal dependent being. And we can renumber the times to correspond to an infinite past: (t = 1/2 represents x = -1, t = 1/4 represents x = -2, where x is 0 represent this current year and the negative numbers are for previous years.) And the cannon represents the causal independent being, which is God. And we can still arrive at the present despite having an infinite chain of universes in our past.
Yep, this is basically a Zeno-style sequence. There are mathematically infinite divisions between two defined points.
But an infinitely divisible interval defined between two finite points is not the same as an actual infinite sequence of dependent events with no first event.
In your example, the cannonball firing ironically demonstrates a beginning. The infinite regress in question assumes there is no defined beginning. That’s much harder to solve
Okay, what do you think about Alexander Pruss’s Grim Reaper scenario?
Assume the past is infinite. Fred is asleep at 11 PM during the last day of 2026. Each Reaper gets assigned a unique number. A Reaper appears before Fred between 11 PM and 12 AM and kills him only if he is still alive. And let’s stipulate that Fred only dies that day if a Reaper kills him.
Reaper #1 set its schedule during 1 BC to go to Fred’s room on Dec 31, 2026 and kill him at 11:30 PM. Reaper #2 set its schedule during 2 BC to go to Fred’s room on Dec 31, 2026 and kill him at 11:15 PM. Reaper #3 set its schedule during 3 BC to go to Fred’s room in Dec 31, 2026 and kill him at 11:07.30 PM. And so on.
So is Fred alive in 2027? No, because if he is still alive by the time Reaper #1 visits him, then he should be killed after 11:30 PM in 2026. But if Fred dead in 2027, which Reaper killed him? It couldn’t be Reaper #1, because Reaper #2 would have killed Fred before Reaper #1 could have. And it couldn’t have been Reaper #2, because Reaper #3 would have killed Fred before Reaper 2 could have. And so on.
So Fred is alive in 2027 because no Reaper kills Fred between 11 PM and 12 AM on Dec 31, 2026. But Fred is also dead in 2027 because at least Reaper #1 would have killed him if Fred was still alive at 11:30 PM.
Given the contradiction, we should reject an infinite past? There was no Reaper who was the first to visit Fred after all. A contradiction is stronger than pointing to the weirdness of an infinite regress.