… apologists are trying to explain why it is not an alternative to God.
From Jeff Miller at Apologetics Press:
7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 1]
Joshua Sokol, writing in New Scientist, said concerning “neighbouring universe[s] leaking into ours,” “Sadly, if they do exist, other bubbles are nigh on impossible to learn about.”56 Amanda Gefter, also writing in New Scientist, discussed making predictions and testing them through observations in the Universe.“That’s not possible in an infinite multiverse: there are no definite predictions, only probabilities.”57 Clark and Webb discuss various difficulties with the idea that there are many Universes: “The second is how you get convincing evidence for the existence of any of them.”58 Lawson Parker, writing in National Geographic, explained that “[i]nflation theory says our universe exploded from…[a quantum energy] fluctuation—a random event that, odds are, had happened many times before. Our cosmos may be one in a sea of others just like ours—or nothing like ours. These other cosmos will very likely remain forever inaccessible to observation, their possibilities limited only by our imagination.”59 How convenient for naturalists to be able to propose a theory to explain away God, and that theory be immune to falsification since it is known from the start to be “forever inaccessible to observation.” [to be continued] More.
Yes, precisely. The purpose of the multiverse project is to put the multiverse beyond the reach of falsifiability. Grasp that and we grasp why naturalism is toxic to science.
See also: Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips
Follow UD News at Twitter!