The conclusion is inescapable that a physical universe such as the one in which we live, ruled as it is by such laws as ‘everything has a beginning’, must have appeared due to the activity of someone or something with a sphere of existence outside of our own. In order to avoid this conclusion, ever more fanciful notions have been launched under the guise of scientific theory, the latest of which to be promoted is the multiverse theory. This notion is that our universe is but one in an infinite number of universes.

 

Why has the idea appeared? Because even in a universe containing billions of galaxies, the odds of finding conditions suitable to enable life to exist are so remote they could not possibly appear merely by chance in a single universe. However, if there was an infinite number of universes, then there would also be an infinite number of ways they could be arranged and therefore it would be very likely to find some with conditions suitable for life, such as our own. Hence, in the cover story of New Scientist, 25 November 2011, Robert Adler says,

 

“Rather than appealing to God or blind luck, some argue that our existence sets parameters that reliably pluck universes like ours from the bottomless grab-bag of the multiverse.”

New Scientist, 26 November 2011, page 43.

 

This, of course, blows his cover! The theory does not exist because scientific observation demands it, but because without a multiverse, scientific observation of our universe requires the existence of God; and this must be avoided at all costs. So it is nothing to do with observable scientific fact, and everything to do with atheistic philosophy.

 

We have seen over the decades the constant wriggling and squirming, trying to produce a viable explanation of the universe without God. There was the idea that the universe has always existed; but that was blown by the observation that it is expanding. This being the case, there must have been a time when it started.

 

How could it start without something or someone starting it? Ah! The Big Bang. I have yet to see an understandable explanation of how the Big Bang could have occurred without a cause, or meet anyone who could explain it to me; but never mind - it’s science (so they tell us), so we must believe it by faith: all the matter of the universe emerged without a cause from a starting point so small it could not have been seen by the naked eye. See here for my response to Stephen Hawking's idea of how it happened.

 

Or it happened by (quote) ‘blind luck’, of course: but it would be sheer desperation for anyone to appeal to that! Or due to a cause that occurred without a cause: sooner or later a theory of origins without a creator has to go back to a causeless beginning.

 

But then, how could the universe have reached the size it is in the time they claim it took? Matter would have had to travel considerably faster than the speed of light for a long time. Ah! Inflation! During the special conditions of inflation immediately after the big bang, the normal laws of physics did not apply, we are told; so

 

“during the first 10^-35 seconds of the Universe’s existence, space expanded by a factor of roughly 10^35.”

New Scientist, 26 November 2011, page 44.

 

Of course, at the end of this process the universe would still have only been the size of a grapefruit and would have had to expand faster than the speed of light for a very long time in order for the matter that makes up the most distant stars to have got so far away from the earth to take 13 billion years for their light to reach us.

 

Does this really explain why the cosmic microwave background is so uniform, though? A temperature match between widely separated regions of the universe within 1/10,000th of a degree would take far longer than the estimated age of the universe to appear. What about:

 

“the physical laws underlying our universe that are so fine-tuned as to allow galaxies, stars, planets, complex chemistry, life and us to exist?”

New Scientist, 26 November 2011, page 44

 

In fact even evolutionists are now being forced to admit that the big bang theory is in serious trouble. In the publication New Scientist, 30 June 2012, the cover article by New Scientist consultant Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang was the Big Bang?” describes some serious problems with the present theories of the origin of the universe on page 35:

 

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princetown University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. “Instead it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.”

It can be seen here, although a subscription is required in order to read it. Max Tegmark was cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

In The New Scientist, May 22, 2004, was published a ‘Cosmology Statement’ complaining that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies, when the theory only survives through a number of ‘fudge factors’. It then appeared on the Internet and was signed by a large number of scientists across the world. The original page has now disappeared, but at the time of writing this page, the statement can be seen here, and begins:

 

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory."

 

In a lecture I attended, given by Valerie Calderbank FRAS, she began, after telling us that the Big Bang Theory was the best explanation of the universe’s origin there is, by saying with reference to what she was about to tell us,

 

"If we get a better theory, then all this will be thrown away,"

 

…which proves that at best it is an unproven hypothesis, based on the belief that no kind of Intelligent Designer exists and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for origins. So its foundation is not scientific observation, but the religious belief that God does not exist.

 

So:

 

God doesn’t exist, and chance could not possibly have achieved it in a single universe; therefore there must be many universes. QED!

(My summary of the argument)

 

Except this conclusion is entirely based on the atheistic, religious theory that God does not exist. What if He does? Notice how things have been twisted. The Bible says:

 

“The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftsmanship.”

Psalm 19:1

 

“For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.”

Romans 1:20

 

The entire creationist argument, apart from the authority of the Bible, is the evidence of scientific laws and observations, which demonstrate features impossible to have appeared through random events. For a long time evolutionists have been denying there was anything special about the universe, or our solar system. It’s just a random collection of planets and stars, they said. Yet now they are admitting we have a fine-tuned universe. The very evidence creationists have been promoting for centuries as proof of the existence of a Creator is suddenly accepted as valid!

 

So, to maintain the pretence that God does not exist, we are expected to believe there is an infinite number of universes, because all other theories of our universe without God will not work in any other way! However, it doesn’t end there.

 

Not only are we expected to believe we are in one universe amongst an infinite number of universes, but that our infinite number of universes are in a kind of ‘bubble’, and there are an infinite number of universe bubbles, some of which contain universes with different laws of physics, different dimensions and are radically different from anything existing in our ‘bubble’.

 

Of course, we are told that it is impossible ever to see any of these other universes, or bubbles, because they are too far away. We simply have to believe them by faith, because the theory of our universe without God won’t work without them.

 

Even more incredibly, one theory has it that our universe is simply a computer simulation on some super computer in a highly advanced civilisation. In this case nothing we see or experience (including ourselves) is real, and everything could radically change, or disappear at any moment.

 

I find it absolutely incredible that people will go to such lengths to avoid the blindingly obvious fact of the existence of God, and that such nonsense as this is not only published by a respectable, scientific journal, but presented as serious, scientific theory. Surely one would have to go a long way to find a clearer example of the truth of the Bible verse:

 

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."

Psalm 14:1

 

These people will discover at the end of their lives how foolish they have been, when they have to stand before the God whose existence they denied, and explain to Him why they ignored the evidence that was right under their own noses, preferring instead to believe theories dreamed up in their own imaginations to give them an excuse to pretend He does not exist.

 

There is another interesting item in the New Scientist magazine mentioned previously. On page 12 we are told that Alicia Cutler and colleagues from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, have discovered that the most likely reason for the contorted death position of many dinosaurs is because they died in water. Dead chickens placed on a bed of sand decayed without contorting, but when placed in cool fresh water

 

“their necks arched and their heads were thrown back within seconds.”

 

Bearing this in mind, the fact that this position is so common is precisely what would be expected if their death and fossilisation was due to a world-wide flood. Why else would so many land-based creatures display such a death position? If they simply drowned in a river or lake, then their bodies would decompose or be eaten by predators. Only by dying in water and then being buried in sediment quickly could they be preserved in such a position. This is yet one more scientific observation supporting the Biblical account of a creation devastated by a global deluge.