Or against fine tuning of our universe. God could have created countless universes on various principles for a variety of reasons:
New Scientist’s executive editor Richard Webb, a “recovering particle physicist,” offers a look at the current state of the idea that there might be an infinity of universes out there. Why believe it? Mainly, it turns out, to avoid believing something else:News, “Multiverse cosmology is not a good argument against God” at Mind Matters News (November 21, 2021)
Many people assume that the idea that ours is the only universe must be a religious one. Webb quotes cosmologist Paul Davies: “‘You have to decide if the origin of the universe is a natural, or a supernatural, event,’” says Davies. “‘If it is a natural event, you wouldn’t expect it to happen just once.’”
Perhaps not. But we can just as easily theorize that a Divine Mind created an infinity of universes. Perhaps ours is one of the few that was “chosen” to produce life. True, one could simplify cosmology by showing that natural laws would randomly produce countless universes, a handful of which may work. But what, exactly, are those laws? As they are outside our universe, we must take them on faith.
The problem with the multiverse doesn’t lie in issues around a role for God. The problem opponents cite is that there is no serious evidence for any universe other than our own. Acceptance of theories without evidence (perhaps to evade a logic problem of some kind) is bad for science in principle.
Although popular science magazines might imply that physics is pointing us to the reality of a multiverse, there is much opposition from within the discipline. Prominent proponents of the multiverse have included well-known cosmologists such as Max Tegmark and Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene and Neil Turok,Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking,as discussed in online science magazines. Opponents include theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder( “Why the multiverse is religion, not science”), cosmologist Paul Davies (“it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics”, which undermines arguments from physics) and cosmologist George Ellis (“beyond the domain of science”). Well-known science writer John Horgan considers them “bad for science” and mathematician Peter Woit thinks that it “has left conventional science completely behind.”
A mathematical argument against the multiverse: More.
Takehome: The key argument against the multiverse is that there is no evidence for it; it takes us outside the realm of observable science — a choice with consequences.
You may also wish to read: In an infinity of universes, countless ones are run by cats… Daniel Díaz notes that most of the talk about the multiverse started to appear once it was realized that there was fine-tuning in nature. Robert J. Marks points out that even 10 to the 1000 th power of universes would only permit 3,322 different paths. Infinity is required but unprovable.