Other Worlds?

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim 

Sci·en·tist – ˈsīəntəst, noun: “A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”

“Study” refers to observation of reality. And “reality” has 2 parts: entities and their properties. If one makes claims that deviate from the observed world and suggests existences or natural laws without evidence or reason, he is not a scientist, but a fantasist. For he believes in imagination and not reality. His words are fabrications and lies. He may believe there is a bridge in front of him as he drives over a cliff, but reality will soon expose his error when his car plummets into the ocean. If another person suggests trees can grow perfectly square apples made of glass, he too will be discounted as a fantasist as he suggest what has never been witnessed; he conflicts with science. He dismisses the observed world, and fantasizes. 

Proponents of a “Multiverse” theory intend to eliminate the need for God. They do so by suggesting infinite universes existed, where all possibilities eventually play out, and our universe evolved by chance, perfectly suited for human life. Meaning, there is no need for God. 

First of all, suggesting multiple universes came to be and vanished, or exist simultaneously, is without evidence. That’s not a scientific conclusion.

Secondly, science supports a Big Bang. That means there is an exclusive single cause for matter. This precludes subsequent Big Bangs, as matter cannot be created once it already exists. Therefore, unlike the Multiverse theory, there is no basis to suggest matter will ever veer from its observable properties such as substance, form, location, weight, atomic   composition and fine tuning. 

Thirdly, this Multiverse theory is without reason, as assumed infinite possibilities do not demand “all” possible variations. For example, one can throw buckets of ink at a wall forever, and this will never create even a single page of Shakespeare. So too, infinite worlds can all be as chaotic as that dripping ink, with no habitable environment for life. This is a crucial step: infinite possibilities do not demand “all” possible variations. 

Additionally, Multiverse proponents contradict themselves, as they wish to apply randomness and chaos—our world’s laws—onto new universes. But according to them, new universes should have properties “other” than randomness, variation and chaos. Perhaps in an infinite string of universes, none have laws of random like ours, and each emerging universe exactly duplicates the previous one. Why should we apply our universe’s random properties to other universes? Think about what they’re saying: they say infinite universes should have variation or random versions. But thats “our” universe’s design! Multiverse fantasists applying “variation” to other universes, thereby say other universes mimic ours, which is against their Multiverse theory.

Why can’t new universes be metaphysical with no physical substance, like a world of ideas and laws? Multiverse proponents who suggest variation of new universes—their first contradiction—should also entertain universes without substance. As they say the human spirit—a metaphysical entity—is a product of infinite universes, what demands the universe itself can’t be wholly metaphysical?

We reject this Multiverse theory in more ways. In their Multiverse theory, they fantasize that infinity is possible, while never observing infinity. Nothing observed presents the infinite: nothing is infinitely big, has infinite properties, there is no evidence of infinite space, there is no evidence of infinite time. Thus, the Multiverse is built on fantasy, making the Multiverse unreal.

In their attempt to remove God, how do universes exists? From where came the first universe? If they hold like Plato and Aristotle that matter is eternal, with no beginning, nothing can exist of its own. There must be a cause for anything in existence, and the “eternal” world theory never traces back to any cause. Traveling back in time infinitely eliminates any “first cause.” Without a first cause, nothing else can exist, as nothing can create itself.