Intelligent Design

Here is What the Multiverse Really Means

Spread the love

Evolutionists use the multiverse idea to explain how their improbable idea that all of biology, and everything else, just happened to arise spontaneously. We know from science that the idea is improbable, but that is only if we restrict ourselves to our particular universe. What if there are many universes? A great many universes. So many universes that even improbable events are eventually likely to occur, in at least one of them. And since there is no upper bound on the number of universes there may be out there, even astronomically unlikely events—like millions and millions of incredible species, each with their incredible designs—become just another yawner. So what, it was bound to happen. And when said evolution occurs, then the creatures it produces will observe their own world. What will be apparent to them is only their own universe. It will appear as though the world must have been created, so unlikely and incredible are its inhabitants. But it is all an illusion for, in the bigger picture, that near infinity of universes—the multiverse—was bound to produce a world so incredible.  Read more

7 Replies to “Here is What the Multiverse Really Means

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    The multiverse is just the materialists way of saying, “we lose.”

  2. 2
    Bruce David says:

    mike1962:

    The multiverse is just the materialists way of saying, “we lose.”

    “but we’re sure as Hell no going to admit it!”

  3. 3
    Bruce David says:

    I am of the opinion, based on a career building IT systems, that not only is Darwinian evolution as the cause of the origin of all species astronomically improbable, it’s actually impossible (probability 0), so the multiverse in fact doesn’t help.

    My reasoning is that in general major modifications to complex systems (like a new body plan, or a new organ system) cannot be implemented in small incremental steps if the system needs to work after each addition. Systems like living organisms are composed of an immense number of hierarchically arranged interacting parts. Any major new addition not only has to have all of its components in place, it also has to be integrated into the original organism. This simply cannot be done in a series of small steps; it has to happen all at once.

    For example, consider an “ordinary” fish which uses gills to extract the oxygen it needs from its environment. To become a lungfish, it needs a usable lung, which not only has to have new cell types from which to build the lung, with many new proteins, it has to have modifications to its circulatory system so that oxygen poor blood can be re-oxygenated, modifications to its musculature to move air into and out of it along with modifications to create a usable air passage to the lung, modifications to its neurology and brain to control its use appropriately, and last but certainly not least, modifications to its gestational process so that the lung gets built in the right size, shape, and location, along with all the other necessary changes during development. If random mutation creates, say, one of the many proteins required for the new cell types, of what possible use is it? If a lung somehow comes into being without all of the changes to the organism to integrate it into its overall functioning, it would probably be downright detrimental or even fatal.

    So Darwinism doesn’t work, even if you can mitigate its enormous probabilistic hurdles with the multiverse. The only possible scenario, even in a multiverse, is saltational, and I doubt that even most materialists would be willing to go that far (although you never know—they’re getting pretty desperate).

  4. 4

    Just for fun. Multiverses in multiverses:

    OK….. Here’s our proposition.
    Reason with us for a while……
    We’ll track down The Final Answer.
    And we’ll do it all with style!

    First we’ll don our white lab jackets.
    Bunsen Burners stoked and fired!
    Chalkboards ready for equations!
    Formulations all inspired!

    Then we’ll dream up universes,
    To make godlessness come true.
    Then we’ll call it”scientific”…
    Even though we have no clue.

    Now, by Jove, we’ve got the picture!
    Holy Cow!…We’re makin’ sense!
    No Designer- talk is needed…
    (Nor is High Intelligence!)

    We can pull this off…Just watch us!
    Look, there’s nothing up our sleeve!
    Naturalism working wonders…
    Keep the Faith, Man….Just believe!

    O, my…Yes!….M-Theory Dreamworks!
    Doublie-Bubblies all The Way!
    Universes out The Wazoo!
    Science Fizz-ics saves the day!

    Such amazing Carbon-ation!
    It’s how everything began…
    In a Burp of Gravitation,
    Next-to-Nuthin’ made the Man!

    All this popped into existence
    Via Fizzy-Dizzy Brew!
    That’s how Dr. Hawking sees it,
    So we think we think it’s true!

    We emerged from pre-Existence
    Yes, The Void before all Time…
    Now we’re here without a Reason,
    And, of course, without a Rhyme.

    We’ll pretend that’s how it happened….
    We’ll pretend that’s how we’re here!
    Who needs “god” when we’re in action,
    Making it so crystal clear!?

  5. 5

    The multiverse, in addition to being unverifiable and wildly speculative, is irrelevant for understanding how life arose.

    The question is not whether strange and unlikely parameters of physics and chemistry could exist in various universes, which would then result in strange and unlikely events in those universes (ours allegedly being one of them).

    The question is: given what we know about our universe and the laws of physics and chemistry that operate in our universe, what is the likely explanation for the origin of life?

    Whatever happens to be going on or not going on in other alleged universes is simply, utterly, and completely irrelevant.

  6. 6
    sxussd13 says:

    @Tom lovely! And your site is also lovely! Thanks for the poetic insights!

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    “Whatever happens to be going on or not going on in other alleged universes is simply, utterly, and completely irrelevant.”

    Scroll down..

    It’s more irrelevant than that, Eric Anderson. Don’t equivocate.

Leave a Reply