Opposed to the idea of divine design is the theory of the
multiverse. (I shall argue, however, that the existence of a
multiverse still does not eliminate the question of a divine
Source.) One of the most prominent proponents of the
multiverse is cosmologist Martin Rees. Rees observes:
Any universe hospitable to life—what we might
call a biophilic universe—has to be “adjusted” in a
particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the
kind we know about—long-lived stable stars, stable
atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to
combine into complex molecules, etc.—are sensi-
tive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion
rate and contents of the universe.4
This could be explained, he says, by the hypothesis that
there are many “universes” with different laws and physi-
cal constants, and ours happens to be one belonging to a
subset of universes that are conducive to the appearance
of complexity and consciousness. If this is the case, fine
tuning would not be surprising.
Rees mentions the most influential variations of
the multiverse idea. In the “eternal inflationary” idea of
cosmologists Andrei Linde and Alex Vilenkin, universes
emerge from individual big bangs with space-time dimen-
sions entirely different from those of the universe we know.
The black hole thesis of Alan Guth, David Harrison, and
Lee Smolin holds that universes materialize from black
holes in mutually inaccessible space-time domains. Finally,
Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum propose that there are
universes in different spatial dimensions that may or may
not interact gravitationally with each other. Rees points
out that these multiverse ideas are “highly speculative” and
require a theory that consistently describes the physics of
ultrahigh densities, the configuration of structures on extra
dimensions, and so forth. He notes that only one of them
can be right. And, in fact, he adds, “Quite possibly none is:
there are alternative theories that would lead just to one
universe.”5
A BLUNDERBUSS THEORY
Both Paul Davies and Richard Swinburne reject the multi-
verse idea. Davies, a physicist and cosmologist, writes that
“it is trivially true that, in an infinite universe, anything
that can happen will happen.” But this is not an explana-
tion at all. If we are trying to understand why the universe
is bio-friendly, we are not helped by being told that all pos-
sible universes exist. “Like a blunderbuss, it explains every-
thing and nothing.” By this he means that it is a vacuous
claim. If we say that the world and everything in it came
into being five minutes ago complete with our memories
of living for many years and evidence of events occurring
thousands of years ago, then our claim cannot be refuted.
It explains everything and yet nothing.
A true scientific explanation, says Davies, is like a sin-
gle well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces
the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex
charade and makes the whole idea of “explanation” mean-
ingless.6 Swinburne is just as strong in his disdain for the
multiverse explanation: “It is crazy to postulate a trillion
(causally unconnected) universes to explain the features
of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do
the job.”7
Three things might be said concerning the arguments
about fine tuning. First, it is a hard fact that we live in a
universe with certain laws and constants, and life would
not have been possible if some of these laws and constants
had been different. Second, the fact that the existing laws
and constants allow the survival of life does not answer the
question of the origin of life. This is a very different ques-
tion, as I will try to show; these conditions are necessary
for life to arise, but not sufficient. Third, the fact that it
is logically possible that there are multiple universes with
their own laws of nature does not show that such universes
do exist. There is currently no evidence in support of a
multiverse. It remains a speculative idea.
What is especially important here is the fact that the
existence of a multiverse does not explain the origin of the
laws of nature. Martin Rees suggests that the existence of
different universes with their own laws raises the question
of the laws governing the entire multiverse, the overarch-
ing theory governing the ensemble. “The underlying laws
governing the entire multiverse may allow variety among the
universes,” he writes. “Some of what we call ‘laws of nature’
may in this grander perspective be local bylaws, consistent
with some overarching theory governing the ensemble, but
not uniquely fixed by that theory.”8
To ask how the laws governing the multiverse originated
is the same as asking for the origin of the laws of nature in
general. Paul Davies notes:
Multiverse proponents are often vague about how
the parameter values are chosen across the defined
ensemble. If there is a “law of laws” describing how
parameter values are assigned as one slips from one
universe to the next, then we have only shifted the
problem of cosmic biophilicity up one level. Why?
First, because we need to explain where the law of
laws comes from.9
Some have said that the laws of nature are simply acci-
dental results of the way the universe cooled after the big
bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents
can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper
laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the
evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the con-
stants follow certain laws. “We’re still left with the ques-
tion of how these ‘deeper’ laws originated. No matter how
far you push back the properties of the universe as some-
how ‘emergent,’ their very emergence has to follow certain
prior laws.”10
So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms
with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable
explanation here is the divine Mind.
