Stephen Hawking denied that the universe needed a God or a supernatural creator. While believers say, "God is the answer to why there is something when there might not be anything," what really convinces them is not this abstract argument, but the alleged fine-tuning. One unimaginably small difference in the way the universe organised itself would mean life could not appear. I wonder how accurate that is, when we cannot create life anyway and have no idea how it started.
Anyway, Hawking says that the universe seems to be fine-tuned and designed. He states that this "design" is entirely natural, and there is no need to surmise that there must be a designer God because there is an infinity of universes. This view says that there are so many universes that, by pure chance, one would appear designed—though it is not. This is the concept of the multiverse. All possible worlds exist in this concept. In one world, Donald Trump marries Madonna. In another, Jesus Christ rises from the dead claiming to be transgender or transpecies.
[Suppose only an all-powerful, infinite God can raise a Jesus from the dead—as the Bible says. Is there a world where this is impossible—and a world where it is possible? Is there a world where it is even happening? This kind of resurrection is impossible, for we said God is almighty and now we are saying he is not. We are not sure if people want to hold that the contradiction is actually true after all.]
The multiverse cannot be verified. Physics can only show that it is possibly true. The theory of the multiverse states that there are countless universes, which explains the seeming design in this one. This is based on the notion that if there are enough universes, chances are one will come out all organised—but just by chance. The theory makes out that the seeming design we see is a coincidence.
Christians say that instead of developing the multiverse theory, it is better to suppose that there is a designer God who made this universe, and there is no need to assume that any other universe exists. They think the multiverse is too complicated, and it's better to stick to simpler theories. But this ignores the fact that nobody can prove it is really possible for the supernatural to exist. In other words, nobody can prove it is possible for a God with supernatural or magic powers to exist. God cannot be proven to be coherent. The multiverse theory makes sense logically and mathematically. Choose the theory with the less supernatural or paranormal in it.
Max Tegmark, author of Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014), says that the multiverse model solves some terrible problems in the Big Bang theory and helps science predict phenomena. For him, the number of events is countless, so it stands to reason that unlikely things have to happen sometime. The sheer luck that leads to you being here and alive proves that! For him, the “you” that exists in another universe is not you, but just a person very like you. Thus, the idea that there may be several mes may be wrong. But not all thinkers suppose that it is wrong.
The objection is that the usefulness of the multiverse cannot beat verification and testing. True—but that is a problem, not an objection. It seems the multiverse model contradicts probability, for it means in a parallel universe, by pure chance, history played out exactly as it did here, but there may have only been a minor difference that does not even register—perhaps a grain of sand a millimetre away from where it is in ours.
The Christians say the multiverse does not rule out the possibility that there is a God (God and Stephen Hawking, page 49). It does not rule out there being a tooth fairy either. It is a theory about how randomness works—it is not related to God at all. And why can't they just say "designer"? "God" is too loaded.
The multiverse would mean that moral choices are ultimately voided, or it is all amoral. It makes no difference if I save Annie’s life in this world, for that makes sure that in another world I will not save her. It makes morality impractical. And morality itself says that if it cannot be done, it is no good. There is a rule that you cannot be morally obligated to do what you cannot do.
Scholars in the Church have claimed that if there are multiple universes, then some could be paradise, and we could go there, or they could be an eternal Hell. But the multiple universes, if they exist, just exist—so you can still end up in a Hell universe despite doing nothing wrong.
Their speculation violates how the multiverse is not about magical worlds but all possible worlds. If magic and the supernatural are real, then we end up with a subject that is not only unfathomable but even more unfathomable.
Hawking stated that we have no direct perception of anything in the universe.
The book God and Stephen Hawking states that when we look at a tree, we see an image of it fed to our brains. Our senses do not give us direct perception or knowledge (page 61). It says we use memory and reason in addition to sense perceptions to be able to tell that what we sense is there.
What the book does not tell us is that if miracles happen and if God exists, then the supernatural exists—and all this is undermined.
Suppose you see a tree. If we accept that nature will not change, we can assume that the tree we see is not a vision or a miracle image but is there. But once we start thinking nature can be overridden by the supernatural, we feel less sure and mentally become less sure. The answer to this is: that is not necessarily true—but remember that we don't see behind the scenes. It is not necessarily true that the new employee will steal, but that does not mean we trust her wholly. We have enough trouble with people saying true things are merely opinions—or might be. Belief in the supernatural increases the wrong kind of scepticism.
I would remind Hawking that what he says is right, but we know what a jigsaw with nearly half the pieces missing is depicting—so all is not lost. We do not need religion coming along trying to fill in missing pieces with supernaturalism. That only attacks our perception, which is threatened enough as it is.
The perception thing helps us get closer to accepting the multiverse. The multiverse is based on how much we do not know.
Page 65 speaks of the subjective element in science and states that the independent observer who is free from all prejudices and preconceived ideas does not exist.
So whatever we believe, that belief is not based solely on evidence. We believe and accept things partly because we are biased and want them to be true. It follows then that to believe that a good God inflicts suffering on people is evil. The more better-off you are, the worse it is. The belief merits revulsion.
With science, though, again, we still see enough of a jigsaw.
The aggression that nature has towards our perception is real and does not indicate a loving creator God.
John Lennox complains that Hawking says miracles don't happen, yet he believes in the multiverse theory which alleges that there are universes in which anything can happen—including water transmuting into wine (God and Stephen Hawking, pages 92–93).
He does not. There could be another universe just slightly different from this one. Perhaps there is an infinitesimally small difference in time, and neither universe can be told apart. The multiverse idea does not require that we think there is such a thing as a universe where water can turn into wine.
FINALLY
Multiverse ideas range from the notion that there are whole
universes almost the same as the one that we are in, to notions that
this universe is connected to multiverse bubbles that support it.
The other universes are very basic and uninteresting. This is based
on the idea that a universe can just be a small pile of rubble or
energy.
Books:
Hawking, S. (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books.
Lennox, J. C. (2011). God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? Lion Books.
Tegmark, M. (2014). Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf.