God and the Multiverse · 2020-05-24 · A Fortunate Universe. Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge University Press, 2016. ISBN 978-1107156616 n Delia Perlovand Alex Vilenkin,

God and the Multiverse3. A Multiverse with a Beginning? An Orderly, Rational,

Comprehensible, Beautiful Universe.

Zooming in and “exploring” one small section of theMandelbrot Set, from Fractal Universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSg2Db3jF_4


SessionsGod and the Multiverse

n 1: Introduction. A Universe with a Beginningn 2: A Universe Finely Tuned for Lifen 3: A Multiverse with a Beginning? An Orderly, Rational,

Comprehensible, Beautiful Universe. ¡

Primary ReferencesGod and the Multiverse

n Stephen M Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. ISBN: 978-0268021986.

n Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?Mariner Books, 2008. ISBN: 978-0547053585.

n Paul Davies, The Mind of God. The Scientific Basis for a Rational World.Touchstone, 1993. ISBN-13: 978-0671797188.

n Geraint F. Lewis, Luke A. Barnes. A Fortunate Universe. Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge University Press, 2016. ISBN 978-1107156616

n Delia Perlov and Alex Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious, Springer, 2017. ISBN 978-3-319-57038-9.

n Louis J Pojman, Philosophy of Religion, McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN: 978-0767408196.n Robert J Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of

Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010. ISBN: 978-0802863836

Almighty and everlasting God, you made the universe with all its marvelous order, its atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and the infinite complexity of living creatures: Grant that, as we probe the mysteries of your creation, we may come to know you more truly, and more surely fulfill our role in your eternal purpose; in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Book of Common Prayer, page 827. For Knowledge of God’s Creation

Introduction

IntroductionGoals

n To appreciate more fully the extent and wonder of God’s creation.

n To show how discoveries in modern astronomy and cosmology are:n compatible with a belief in a creator God,n can be most rationally explained by a creator God who deliberately

created a universe — or multiverse — that would be fruitful of life. ¡

IntroductionWhy God and the Multiverse?

n Romans 1:20 (NRSV): “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.”

n (Psalm 19: 1-4 NIV) : The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

n Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.

n They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them.

n Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

IntroductionWeek 1: A Universe with a Beginning

n Observational cosmology has firmly established, from multiple lines of evidence, that our universe began 13.8 billion year ago in an event called “The Big Bang.”n The past is finite; there is

a past limit to physical reality. ¡

IntroductionWeek 1: A Universe with a Beginning

n Cosmology’s discovery that the universe had a beginning empowers the traditional Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (The “second way” of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1224-1274, based on the idea of causation):n 1. Everything we see in this world is caused.n 2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.n 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes – because

the universe has a beginning. The past is finite.Therefore:n 4. There must exist an uncaused first cause not of this worldn 5. The word God means “uncaused first cause not of this

world”.n 6. Therefore, God exists. ¡

St. Thomas Aquinas

IntroductionWeek 2: A Universe Finely Tuned for Life

n The “Teleological Argument” for the existence of God: the world looks like it was deliberately designed for a purpose.

n Formally (after William Paley):n 1. Human artifacts (for example, a watch) are products of

intelligent design.n 2. The orderliness and intricacy of the universe resembles these

human artifacts.n 3. Therefore: the universe is likely a product of intelligent

design.n 4. But the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a

human artifact.n 5. Therefore: there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent

designer who designed the universe (= God). ¡William Paley (1743-1805)


n Results from modern physics and cosmology empower the Teleological Argument for the God’s existence, for the physical laws of universe seemed incredibly “fine tuned” or “adjusted” for the purpose of giving rise to life (= the so-called “anthropic coincidences”). We sampled some of these last week:n 1. Masses of the fundamental particles,n 2. Relative strengths of the electromagnetic

and strong forces,n 3. The Triple Alpha process to produce

carbon from helium. ¡

Only up quark, down quark, and electron masses in the area of the small green wedge allows for complex chemistry, and hence the possibility of life. Our universe fortuitously lies at the position of the white dot.


n The alternative explanation to a powerful and vastly intelligent designer for such apparent “fine-tuning” is that there is an unimaginably enormous array of universes (= a Multiverse) that have laws of physics with random parameters, nearly all these universes dead and sterile, and we just happen to live in one where all the parameters, by random chance, are “just right” for life.

n This explanation is less satisfying given:n Ockham’s razor: unnecessary, excessive material should

be cut away from any explanation, and the simplesthypothesis accepted,

n The “meta-laws” of a Multiverse themselves need to be finely tuned to avoid Boltzmann Brains. ¡

IntroductionThis Week: An Orderly, Rational,

Comprehensible, Beautiful Universen This week we will look at some additional questions, questions science

is unlikely to ever be able to answer or explain:n Where do the laws of physics come from? [or, if there is a Multiverse] Where

do the “meta-laws” of the Multiverse come from?n Why is there any order at all, why not just chaos?

n Why should the laws of physics that lead to a universe fruitful of life and of conscious, intelligent beings (ourselves) also be laws that those conscious intelligent beings:n can comprehend?n find to be aesthetically beautiful?

n What gives “fire” to the law of physics; what gives palpable “reality” to the potentiality they describe? ¡

IntroductionThis Week: A Multiverse with a Beginning?

n But first this week we will briefly wrap up a “loose end.”n In week 1: we saw how the beginning of our universe in the Big

Bang empowers the Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence.n However: what if the Big Bang was not the beginning of physical reality?n What if the Big Bang was the “sprouting” of our universe from another

universe in a Multiverse?n Does this possibility again put the Cosmological Argument for God’s

existence back into limbo? ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Cosmological Argument

n The traditional “Cosmological Argument” for the existence of Godsays:n 1. Everything we see in this world is caused.n 2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.n 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.Therefore:n 4. There must exist an uncaused first cause not of this world.n 5. The word God means “uncaused first cause not of this world”.n 6. Therefore, God exists.

n Philosophy courses routinely note this argument fails because of premise 3, “There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.” ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Cosmological Argument

n However the Big Bang proves that premise 3 is in fact correct. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes, for the universe is finite in time; the universe has a definite beginning in time.

n Therefore the traditional “Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God (defined as the “uncaused first cause, not of this world”) does work to prove the existence of God. ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?But Was the Big Bang the Beginning?

n The Big Bang is the beginning of our known Universe.

n But is the Big Bang really the beginning of all of physical reality?n Could there have been another physical reality,

another “universe” that gave rise to our universe?n Could there be other universes, separate from our

own?n There is currently not a shred of observational

evidence for any other universe. ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?But Was the Big Bang the Beginning?

n But:n because of a persistent philosophical preference

(bias?) for an eternal universe among cosmologists, and

n to explain the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe for life (last week’s topic), and

n because it is the job of a scientist to try to find “natural” explanations for whatever mystery they can,

n Many cosmologists have explored the possibility that there is “Multiverse” of many universes out there, that our universe is but a recent sprout of a “Multiverse.” ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Multiverse Models

n Multiverse models that might give rise to our universe include:n Bouncing Multiverse,n The Eternal or Chaotic Inflation Multiverse,n The String / M-Theory Landscape Multiverse,n Braneworld Cyclic Multiverse = Ekpyrotic

Multiverse. ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Was the Big Bang the Beginning?

n It turns out however, that all viable Multiverse models still require a beginning because of: n The Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy must increase in any

universe (or Multiverse), andn the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) Theorem: Any universe (or

Multiverse) that has an average expansion greater than zero must have had a beginning. ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy

n Any universe runs on energy and entropy.n Entropy (loosely) is a measure of the disorder in a system. The amount of

disorder in the Universe (or any isolated part of it) never spontaneously decreases (= The Second Law of Thermodynamics):n the kitchen never cleans itself,n desks never stay neat on their own,n broken vases never mend themselves.

n More fundamentally:n entropy is a measure of how much useful or free energy exists in a system:n a system with low entropy (lots of order) has energy that can be extracted and

converted into another form: it has useful energy;n a system with high entropy (lots of disorder) has energy that is stuck; it cannot be

used or tapped. ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy

n As energy flows, the total entropy (amount of disorder) never decreases; nearly all of the time the total entropy increases.

n The total entropy in the universe is thus increasing as the universe generates energy, and the total amount of available energy to do things in the universe is decreasing.

n You can never build a perpetual motion machine because:n As any isolated system generates energy to do work, its entropy increases.n As its entropy increases, the amount of available energy to do work decreases.n Eventually the system will “run down,” its entropy becoming so high it has no

available energy to do any work.n Any eternal multiverse would have similarly “run down” a near eternity ago.

n A Multiverse therefore, cannot be eternal, but must at some point, have had a beginning. ¡

A Multiverse with a Beginning?Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) Theorem

n A second reason why any multiverse must at some point have had a beginning is the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) Theorem in cosmology: Any universe (or multiverse) that has an average expansion greater than zero must have had a beginning (a past space-time boundary) – regardless of the physics of that universe.

n All reasonable, proposed multiverse models have an average expansion rate greater than zero, and hence must have a beginning.

n Therefore the “Cosmological Argument” for the existence of God (= “uncaused first cause, not of this world”) is still valid. ¡

Alan Guth 1947-

Alexander Vilenkin1947-

n Why (by the way) did God choose to create the unimaginably vast Universe we know we live within?

n Why might God have chosen to create not one vast universe, but an even greater Multiverse?

n In our time, C. S. Lewis (1898-1963), in his fantasy series Chronicles of Narnia, imagines God to have created a large number of different realms of being.

n In the 16th century, the Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) declared:n “Thus is the excellence of God magnified and the

greatness of his kingdom made manifest; he is glorified not in one, but in countless suns; not in a single earth, but in a thousand, I say, in an infinity of worlds.” ¡

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)

A Multiverse with a Beginning?God as Infinitely Creative

The Laws of Physics

The Laws of PhysicsOrder in Nature

n If we study the world around us, we see order, striking regularities:n The orbits of the planets and their moons are simple geometrical

shapes; their motions display precise mathematical rhythms.n Patterns and rhythms are found within atoms.n Bridges and machines behave in an ordered and predictable manner.

n These regularities are clearly real; they are not merely patterns “imposed on” nature by our minds.

n Physicists, discerning these fundamental patterns, n have found they can be best distilled and expressed using

mathematics.n have come to regard them as “laws” that do not merely describe, but

prescribe, that govern the universe. They are the eternal, bedrock truths upon which the universe is built. ¡

Orbit of the Moon Around the Earth

Electrons “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom

The Laws of PhysicsOrder in Nature

n Remarkably, these mathematical distillations of the regularities seen in nature have allowed us to uncover new things in nature, often things we never suspected:n Newton’s law of gravity, for example, gives an accurate

account of planetary motion, but it also explains the ocean tides, the shape of the Earth, the motion of spacecraft, and much else.

n Maxwell’s Theory of Electromagnetism went far beyond a description of electricity and magnetism, by explaining the nature of light waves and predicting the existence of radio waves.

n Study and formulation of the truly basic Laws of Physicshave revealed deep interconnections between different physical processes, connections that we otherwise never would have discerned or even guessed. ¡

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity

Maxwell’s Equations of Electromagnetism

The Laws of PhysicsProperties of the Laws

n Many of the “properties” that physicists attribute to the Laws of Physics are properties that theists commonly attribute to God.

n The Laws are Universal and Perfect.n The Laws apply unfailingly everywhere in the universe and at all epochs

of cosmic history. No exceptions are permitted.n The Laws are Absolute.n The Laws do not depend on anything else. They do not depend on who is

observing the world, or on the actual state of the world. ¡

The Laws of PhysicsProperties of the Laws

n The Laws are Eternal.n The Laws do not change in time.n This timeless, eternal character of the laws is reflected in their expression as

timeless, unchanging mathematical structures.n The Laws are Omnipotent.n Everything that exists is subject to the laws. Nothing escapes them. They are

“all-powerful.”n The Laws are Omniscient (in a loose sense).n Systems in the world do not have to “inform” the Laws of their current situation

in order for the laws to “govern” them. The “Laws” seem to already “know” their situation. ¡

The Laws of PhysicsNature of the Laws

n So what is the true nature of these Laws of Physics? In what sense do they “exist,” and where do they “exist”?

n Most scientists think of the Laws of Physics as something “out there,” that they are discovering, something transcendental.

n A related question: all of the fundamental Laws of Physics are expressed in mathematical form. What is the nature of mathematics? Where do mathematical forms and structuresexist?n Galileo: “The great book of nature can be read only by

those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics.”

n English Astronomer James Jean (pioneer in the study of stars): “The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.”

n Many mathematicians also think of themselves as “discovering” mathematics forms and structures that exist “out there,” forms and structures that exist in a transcendental realm. ¡

Einstein’s Equations of Special Relativity

Einstein’s Equation of General Relativity (replacing Newton’s

Theory of Gravity)

The Laws of PhysicsPlatonic Nature of Mathematics

n The idea that mathematics forms and structuresexist “out there,” in a transcendental realm, was the view of Plato (427 – 347 BC).

n Plato is most famous for his theory of Forms or Ideas:n All triangles have in common participation in the

“Form of the Triangle” that exists in a divine, eternal, simple, indissoluble, unchanging, self-subsisting reality, existing outside space and time (= the Platonic realm).

n All beautiful things have in common participation in the Form of the Beautiful; all good things have in common participation in the Form of the Good that exists in the Platonic realm. ¡

Plato, 427-347 BC


n Many mathematicians are “Platonists” The Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose writes:

n “Mathematical truth is something that goes beyond mere formalism. There often does appear to be some profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond the deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though human thought is, instead, being guided towards some eternal external truth—a truth which has a reality of its own, and which is revealed only partially to any one of us.”

n Examples that inspired Penrose to adopt Platonisminclude:n the system of complex numbers, which he feels has

“a profound and timeless reality.”n something called “the Mandelbrot set.” ¡Roger Penrose, 1931 -


n The Mandelbrot Set was discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot in 1980.

n The set is produced by the incredibly simple iteration formula:

n zn+1 = zn2 + c

n where z and c are complex numbers and z0= 0.

n The Mandelbrot set consists of all the points on a complex coordinate graph for which the function z2 + c doesn’t diverge under iteration. ¡

Benoit Mandelbrot, 1924-2010


n Roger Penrose writes:n “The complete details of the

complication of the structure of Mandelbrot’s set cannot really be fully comprehended by any one of us, nor can it be fully revealed by any computer. It would seem that this structure is not just part of our minds, but it has a reality of its own. . . . The computer is being used in essentially the same way that the experimental physicist uses a piece of experimental apparatus to explore the structure of the physical world. The Mandelbrot set is not an invention of the human mind: it was a discovery. Like Mount Everest, the Mandelbrot set is just there.” ¡

Zooming in and “exploring” one small section of the Mandelbrot Set, using the computer, from Fractal Universe:



The Laws of PhysicsNature of the Laws of Physicsn We are faced with deep and profound mysteries:n The Laws of Physics seem to be eternal, bedrock truths

upon which the universe is built. n They are universal, perfect, absolute, eternal,

omnipotent and omniscient in their scope.n They seem to physicists to exist “out there” in some

transcendent “Platonic” realm.n The Laws of Physics appear to be encoded in

mathematic forms and structures, and these mathematic forms and structures also appear to exist in some transcendent “Platonic” realm.

n How can these mysteries be explained? ¡

The Laws of PhysicsNature of the Laws of Physics

n For a Christian, a satisfying explanation is:n The Platonic realm where mathematical forms and structures

exist is the realm of God.n The laws of physics seems universal, perfect, absolute,

eternal, omnipotent and omniscient in their scope because they rooted in and crafted by God, the creator of our universe.

n If the idea of God is rejected, then the existence of both the Laws of Physics and the mathematical structures in which they are encoded become profound and unanswerable mysteries: n Where do they come from? n Who “sent the message”? n Who devised the code?n How could something that seems so obviously to belong to the

realm of the “mind” just simply be “there” — free floating?¡

Michelangelo: The Creation of the Heavens (detail), 1508-12, from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel

Why Are the Laws of Physics Intelligible to

Us?

Intelligible LawsWhy are the Laws Comprehensible?

n Human beings have come to understand the world, at least in part, through the processes of reasoning and science.

n We have methodically explored our physical world, as well as mathematics, and by so doing have unraveled some of the hidden “cosmic code,” the “Laws of Physics,” the subtle tune to which nature dances.

n There is nothing in the Multiverseexplanation for why the universe appears designed to produce life that requires that life have such a deep level of involvement, such a deep level of connection with the Laws of the Universe or Multiverse. ¡Neil Armstrong on the Moon, Apollo

11 mission, July 1969

Intelligible LawsWhy are the Laws Comprehensible?n That is: there is no obvious reason why we humans should be

capable of comprehending the fundamental Laws of Physics that undergird the universe.n If there is no God, if we are merely products of a mindless evolution,

merely creatures formed in a jungle crucible of “dog eat dog” natural selection and survival of the fitness, what evolutionary purpose was served by our ability to comprehend higher mathematics or discern quantum mechanics?

n If Window 7 involves 39 million lines of source code, Facebook 61 million lines of source code, and Google 2 billion lines of source code, wouldn’t you expect that any “cosmic code” that undergirds the operation of the universe would most likely be incomprehensible by any finite intelligent being? ¡

Lines of code in software

Intelligible LawsWhy are the Laws Comprehensible?

n A Christian can speculate Goddeliberately designed the universe

n with laws that would be comprehensible to the conscious, intelligent beings (us, for example) that the universe was designed be fruitful of,

n because God wanted those creatures, intended to reflect God’s “image and likeness,” to have some understanding and appreciation of the creation, an understanding and appreciation that they could share with the Creator. ¡

Michelangelo: The Creation of Man, 1508-12, from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Why Are the Laws of Physics Aesthetically

Beautiful to Us?

“Beautiful” LawsBeauty, a Guide to Discovery in Physics

n Not only are the Laws of Physics comprehensible to humans, but theoretical physicists – those who spend their lives studying the Laws – describe the laws as aesthetically beautiful.

n It is widely believed among scientists that beauty is a reliable guide to truth, and many advances in theoretical physics have been made by the theorist demanding mathematical elegance of a new theory.

n Einstein, when discussing an experimental test of his aesthetically elegant General Theory of Relativity, was once asked what he would do if the experiment didn’t agree with the theory. He was unperturbed at the prospect. “So much the worse for the experiment,” he retorted. “The theory is right!” ¡

Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

“Beautiful” LawsBeauty, a Guide to Discovery in Physics

n Paul Dirac, the theoretical physicist whose aesthetic deliberations led him to construct a mathematically more elegant equation for the electron, which then led to the successful prediction of the existence of antimatter, echoed these sentiments when he judged that “it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment.”

n Roger Penrose, the mathematical physicist, describes creative work in physics as the creative mind “breaking through” into the Platonic realm to glimpse mathematical forms which are in some way beautiful:n He cites beauty as a guiding principle in much of his mathematical

work. n Countering a view of mathematics as cold, dry, and rigorous discipline,

Penrose notes: “Rigorous argument is usually the last step! Before that, one has to make many guesses, and for these, aesthetic convictions are enormously important.” ¡Paul Dirac, 1902-1984

“Beautiful” LawsElegance and Beauty of

Maxwell’s Equationsn As a college sophomore physics major at Rice

University, when we finished a year of study of Maxwell’s four equations that encoded all the phenomenon of electromagnetism, it seemed very appropriate to: n celebrate the elegance and beauty of those four

equations, an elegance and beauty that we physics students could now appreciate to some degree,

n acknowledge the ecstatic “high” many of us now felt,in the manner our physics professor proceeded to do:

n He raised a large banner displaying the four equations before the amphitheater of physics students, to the finale of the Beethoven’s Overture of 1812. ¡

“Beautiful” LawsWhy are the Laws “Beautiful”?

n A Christian can speculate Goddeliberately designed the universe

n with laws that would be comprehensible and beautiful to the conscious, intelligent beings (us, for example) that the universe was designed be fruitful of,

n because God wanted those creatures, intended to reflect God’s “image and likeness,” to have some understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the creation, an understanding and aesthetic appreciation that they could share with the Creator. ¡Michelangelo: The Creation of Man, 1508-12, from the

ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

What Gives “Fire,” “Reality” to Mere

Possibility?

Giving “Reality” to PossibilityWhat is the Source of Being?

n The Laws of Physics prescribe the behavior of the fundamental constituents of the universe.

n But knowing the law, the prescription, the “cosmic code,” does not explain:n the existence of the universe, n the fact the universe is,n that the universe has being.

n The Laws of Physics, the “cosmic code,” only describes possibility, potentiality. It is the “software” that prescribes the behavior of “hardware.” It is the “dream” of a possible world.

n What gives the “hardware” being / palpable reality? What makes the “dream” real? ¡

Giving “Reality” to PossibilityWhat is the Source of Being?

n Perhaps someday science will find the “Final Theory of Everything,” the entire cosmic code that prescribes the behavior of everything in the universe.

n Such a “Final Theory of Everything” will still only be:n the code or law for how “things” behave,n “software” that prescribes the behavior of “hardware,”n the “dream” of a possible world, a world that has somehow become real.

n A Final Theory of Everything can never answer the questions:n What gives “being” to the “things”?n What creates and sustains the “hardware”?n What made the possible, “dream” world into a “real” world? ¡

Giving “Reality” to PossibilityGod as the Source of Being?

n A Christian however does have an answer to these questions: n the “things”, n the “hardware”, n the “possible, dream world become real”n – the universe –

n has been created, made real, and is continuously sustained in being by God. ¡

Putting It All Together

Putting It All TogetherSummary of the Problems

n Week 1 & 3: The Universe or the Multiverse had a beginning, before which there was nothing. Yet from nothing, comes nothing. What then could have caused the Universe / Multiverse to begin?

n Week 2: How do we explain that the Universe appears to be incredibly fine-tuned – as if designed -- to be fruitful of life?

n This Week: n How do we explain that the Laws of Physics are both comprehensible and

aesthetically beautiful to the life the universe appears designed to produce?n What gives “fire” to the Laws of Physics; what gives palpable “reality” /

being itself to the potentiality they describe? ¡

Putting It All TogetherThe Best Explanation

n The best explanation, the only explanation that can answer all questions is:n a creator God who deliberately created a universe — or multiverse —

that would be fruitful of conscious, intelligent life, n a God who wanted that conscious, intelligent life, intended to reflect

God’s “image and likeness,” to have some understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the creation, an understanding and aesthetic appreciation that they could share with the Creator. ¡


n A common objection is: but who created God? What caused God?n In our “realm of reality” everything has a cause that is not itself;

everything is dependent or contingent on something else.n But it is fully logical and coherent to say there could be realm of reality

and a Being that is not caused or contingent on something else.n Indeed, such a Being is logically necessary to explain any realm of

reality where everything is dependent on / contingent on / caused bysomething else.

n God is this necessary Being, a Being not dependent on anything else, an uncaused Being. ¡


n This then is the description of God that “Natural Theology” (the name for what we’ve been doing these past 3 weeks!) has led us to:n a creator God who deliberately created a universe — or multiverse —

that would be fruitful of conscious, intelligent life, n a God who wanted that conscious, intelligent life, intended to reflect

God’s “image and likeness,” to have some understanding and aesthetic appreciation of the creation, an understanding and aesthetic appreciation that they could share with the Creator.

n Such a God is fully consistent with God revealed to us in the Scripture, with God revealed to us in Jesus, The Christ, Our Lord and Savior. ¡

Documents

God and the Multiverse · 2020-05-24 · A Fortunate Universe. Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. Cambridge University Press, 2016. ISBN 978-1107156616 n Delia Perlovand Alex Vilenkin,