In at least one of those alternate universes, there is a PBS TV series on three successive nights entitled Ashwin Discusses the Multiverse. It is part of one of those prime-time “Pledge Week” telethons where they keep breaking away to people manning telephones in the local PBS affiliate’s TV studio. It comes right before the Celtic Women Labor Day Marathon, the one featuring @Patrick as the fiddle soloist in green-plaid kilts playing “O Danny Boy.”
In yet another of those alternate universes, “Ashwin Discusses the Multiverse” is the title of a guest interview on NPR’s All Things Considered. BBC guest commentator Sir Robert Byers is the host.
In at least a dozen or so alternate universes there is an Internet forum called Reasonably Irenic Science.
Personally, I don’t think the multiverse exists. And if it does, it shouldn’t. Now you know why.
the multiverse does not eliminate the need for a personal, supernatural Creator and Designer. I devoted six pages in my book More Than a Theory to outlining several of these reasons. My colleague Jeff Zweerink wrote a booklet on the subject, Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse?
Saying the multiverse doesn’t eliminate the need for a personal, supernatural creator and designer (mostly because it’s wrong/ridiculous idea) is different from claiming the idea is completely consistent with God’s activity and character as depicted in the bible.
How could the multiverse hypothesis be simultaneously compatible with “the need for a personal, supernatural Creator and Designer” but incompatible with God’s character and activity as depicted in the Bible? How is it possible to sever our need and our redemption from God’s character and activity?
One option is explained in the article you shared.
If the concept of the multiverse lacks explanatory power (in that it explains everything and hence nothing), it then underlines the need for a personal, supernatural Creator and Designer” to make sense of things.
In such a scenario, the concept’s compatibility with the bible is irrelevant because the concept itself is being dismissed as not explaining anything.
Let me give you an example. The failure of athiest socialism supports the need for a personal, supernatural Creator and Designer. Does that mean that athiesm/socialism is compatible with the bible?
Once again, you miss the fact that Ross is addressing the “many worlds” version of the multiverse. This is multiverse #3 in his taxonomy of 4 multiverse models.
You should read Ross and Zweerink in greater detail. You seem to be interested in what they are saying, but so far you do not understand it. Just click the “multiverse” keyword tag at the bottom of the article, and you can enjoy a feast of great material from an apologetics ministry that has great astrophysics chops.
Yes… it’s a fantasy book.
If I ever write a book, it might also center on alternative realities. That doesn’t mean I believe alternative realities exist.
What makes you think CS Lewis believed that his fictional worlds were real?
If my reading of Ross and Zweerink is correct, there are multiverse models that do not contain these assumptions. But R and Z will be much more effective at explaining the concepts than I, so I will just pray God’s peace and wisdom for you as you go forth.