The Big Idea
Somewhere in the last thirty years the multiverse escaped the physics journals and became a fixture of ordinary conversation. It is in the films, in the documentaries, and increasingly in the questions people bring to church: if there are infinite universes, doesn't that explain away the fine-tuning? Doesn't it make God unnecessary? And from another direction entirely: doesn't "worlds without number" mean the Latter-day Saints were right?
Both questions assume something that has never been established. So we are going to do the unglamorous thing first and ask whether there is any veridical evidence — evidence that actually tracks the truth, not merely evidence that a theory is elegant or popular. Only then will we ask what it would prove.
Here is the short version, so you know where we are going. There is no direct evidence for a multiverse; every observational search so far has come back empty; and the theory currently cannot make predictions at all. If one were confirmed, it would not disprove God — it would weaken one argument for God while leaving the others untouched. And it would give no support whatever to Mormonism. In fact, on the point where Latter-day Saint theology is most distinctive, the physics cuts the other way.
Most of the confusion in this debate comes from one word doing four jobs. The physicist Max Tegmark sorted the proposals into four levels, and the levels are wildly different in how much they ask you to believe. Someone who says "the multiverse is basically established physics" is usually thinking of Level I. Someone who says "the multiverse explains fine-tuning" needs Level II. They are not the same claim, and the evidence for them is not the same evidence.
A few honest notes on that table.
Here is the difficulty at the root of the whole subject. On nearly every version of the theory, other universes are causally disconnected from ours — no light, no signal, no influence has ever reached us from them, and none ever can. That is not a temporary limitation of our telescopes. It is built into what the theory says they are.
So the evidence, if it exists, has to be indirect. There are only three plausible routes:
Route 1 has been tried and has failed. Route 2 has not happened. Route 3 has one interesting case, which we will treat fairly in Part Four. Let us take them in that order.
This is the part that rarely makes the documentaries. Actual observational searches for multiverse signatures have been carried out by serious people with the best instruments ever built. Here is what they found.
Circles in the oldest light
In 2011 a team at University College London ran the first serious observational test of eternal inflation, hunting the WMAP sky maps for the circular temperature discontinuities a bubble collision would leave. They found four candidate features — and then, to their credit, reported that the data did not support claiming a detection.
The Planck satellite, with substantially better resolution and sensitivity, ran the definitive version of the search. Nothing. No statistically significant bubble-collision signature exists in the best map of the early universe we have.
Something pulling from outside
In 2008 a team reported that distant galaxy clusters seemed to be streaming in a common direction faster than standard cosmology allows — and suggested the pull might come from beyond our observable horizon, possibly from structures in another region of a larger multiverse. It made headlines everywhere.
Planck's measurements did not confirm it. The bulk flow, measured properly, came out consistent with ordinary cosmology. The result is now generally attributed to systematic error in the original analysis. This one is not merely unconfirmed; it has largely been withdrawn from the field's working evidence.
The Cold Spot and the lopsided sky
Two features of the microwave sky get invoked: a large cold region in the southern sky, and a slight asymmetry between the two hemispheres. Both have been proposed at various times as bruises from a neighbouring universe.
The honest reading is that their statistical significance is modest, and that it shrinks further once you account for the fact that we went looking through an enormous sky for something unusual — find enough patterns and one of them will look striking by chance. Ordinary explanations are available for both. They are curiosities, not evidence.
Fairness requires us to state the best argument on the other side as strongly as its advocates do, and this is it.
In 1987, more than a decade before anyone had measured it, the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg published an argument about the cosmological constant — the energy of empty space, the thing now called dark energy. His reasoning was explicitly anthropic and explicitly assumed something like a multiverse: if this constant varies across a vast ensemble of regions, then observers can only arise where it is small enough to permit galaxies to form. So we should not expect to measure zero; we should expect to measure a small non-zero value, near the largest that still allows galaxies.
In 1998 two teams measured the accelerating expansion of the universe and found exactly that: a small, non-zero cosmological constant. Weinberg's paper had, in a real sense, called it in advance.
Three qualifications, all of which the physics community itself acknowledges:
If you take away one technical idea from this lesson, make it this one, because it is the thing the popular treatments never mention and it is decisive.
In an eternally inflating multiverse, bubbles keep forming forever. Every kind of universe that can occur, occurs — infinitely many times. Now try to ask a question like "what fraction of observers see a cosmological constant like ours?" You are dividing one infinity by another. The answer depends entirely on the order in which you count, and different reasonable-looking counting rules — physicists call this the measure problem — give radically different answers.
And the problem has teeth. The most notorious consequence is the Boltzmann brain. In a universe that lasts forever, random thermal fluctuations will occasionally assemble a conscious observer — complete with false memories of a life and a coherent-looking moment of experience — out of the void. On most proposed measures, these fluctuation-observers vastly outnumber ordinary ones like us who arose through billions of years of orderly cosmic history.
Which means that on most measures, the theory predicts you should be a Boltzmann brain, and your next moment of experience should dissolve into chaos. It does not. The room is still here; the sentence still parses; the world remains stubbornly orderly. Sean Carroll — himself an advocate of many-worlds — has argued that theories predicting Boltzmann-brain dominance are thereby cognitively unstable: if you believed one, you would have no grounds for trusting the reasoning that led you to believe it.
This is why the criticism from inside physics is so sharp. Paul Steinhardt, one of the architects of inflationary cosmology, has publicly argued that the multiverse turns inflation into a theory that cannot fail and therefore cannot be tested. George Ellis and Joe Silk went so far as to publish a warning in Nature (2014) that the field was abandoning the empirical standards that make physics physics. These are not creationists at the door. They are the discipline's own senior figures.
"You are using the wrong standard"
The most serious reply, argued by Sean Carroll among others, is that demanding direct falsifiability of every entity in a theory is bad philosophy of science. We accept the interiors of black holes and the quark content of protons without observing them individually; we accept them because they fall out of frameworks that succeed elsewhere. On this view the multiverse should be judged by ordinary standards of theoretical fit and simplicity, not by whether we can photograph one.
That is a fair point, and we should grant it. But grant it and the conclusion still holds: judged by ordinary theoretical standards, the framework it comes packaged with has no confirmed predictions and an unsolved measure problem at its heart. Loosening the standard of evidence does not create evidence.
Nobody arrived at the multiverse by looking through a telescope and finding one. It became attractive because of a genuine, agreed-upon feature of the universe we do observe: the constants of physics sit in an extraordinarily narrow range compatible with anything interesting existing at all.
Three of these are worth taking seriously, and are not disputed as facts:
Given facts like these, there are essentially three responses available: it is a brute accident; it is the product of a selection effect across many universes; or it is the product of intention. The multiverse is the second. It exists in the literature as an alternative to design — which is exactly why Christians should understand it accurately rather than caricature it.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the multiverse were confirmed tomorrow. Would fine-tuning then be explained away, and God with it? Four considerations say no — and we will grade our confidence in each, because two of these are much stronger than the other two.
The inverse gambler's fallacy
Walk into a casino, watch one player roll double sixes, and conclude "there must have been many rolls tonight." That is a fallacy — the other rolls do nothing to make this roll more likely. Roger White argued the multiverse commits the same error: what needs explaining is not that some universe is life-permitting but that this one — the one we are in and observing — is. A larger ensemble raises the odds of the first and leaves the second untouched.
The honest caveat: this argument is genuinely contested, and it has taken serious fire. Critics reply that the case is disanalogous because of an observation selection effect — you could not have found yourself in a non-life-permitting universe, so the sampling is not like watching an arbitrary roll. The debate has run for twenty-five years and is not settled. Use it as a live philosophical objection, never as a knock-down.
The machine that makes universes is itself finely tuned
A universe generator is not nothing. Eternal inflation requires an inflaton field with a suitable potential, a mechanism that actually varies the constants from bubble to bubble, and background laws stable enough for any of it to work. Change those and the machine produces nothing, or produces uniformly sterile universes.
So the fine-tuning has not been eliminated. It has been relocated — pushed up one level, into the mechanism. This is the reply that has held up best over thirty years of debate, and it has never been satisfactorily answered.
Penrose's objection: it would have been far cheaper to fake it
The anthropic argument runs like this: of all the universes in the ensemble, we necessarily find ourselves in one of the rare ones that permits observers, so no further explanation is needed. Fine. But now ask what the cheapest observer-permitting arrangement is. Penrose's point is that a vastly smaller, more probable fluctuation — a solar system, a room, a brain — would have been enough to produce an observer having your exact current experience. Producing 13.8 billion years of orderly cosmic history first is an astronomically extravagant way to make one observer.
So anthropic reasoning does not predict the universe we actually see. It predicts a much smaller and messier one. That is the Boltzmann-brain problem again, and it is a genuine strike against selection as an explanation.
It does not touch the question underneath
Grant a multiverse. It is still a thing that exists — contingent, structured, law-governed, and utterly unexplained by its own contents. Why is there an ensemble rather than nothing? Multiplying universes multiplies the question; it does not answer it.
And there is a hard result here, not just a philosophical intuition. The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem (2003) shows that any spacetime which has been expanding on average throughout its past cannot be extended infinitely into the past. This applies to eternal inflation itself. The multiverse is eternal into the future, not the past. Alexander Vilenkin, an atheist and a co-author of the theorem, put it bluntly: cosmologists can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.
Notice what the Bible does not do. It never tells us how many worlds there are, and it never offers a cosmological model we could test. What it claims is something a physics result can neither establish nor overturn: that whatever exists, exists because God spoke it, and that it is not self-explanatory.
Septuagint (LXX) & Greek New Testament
Gen 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
Ps 19:1 · LXX 18:2 Οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν θεοῦ, ποίησιν δὲ χειρῶν αὐτοῦ ἀναγγέλλει τὸ στερέωμα.
Ps 33:6 · LXX 32:6 Τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν, καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν.
Isa 45:18 ...οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἐποίησεν αὐτὴν ἀλλὰ κατοικεῖσθαι ἔπλασεν αὐτήν· ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι.
John 1:3 Πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
Rom 1:20 Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης.
Col 1:16–17 ...τὰ πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
Heb 11:3 Πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὸ βλεπόμενον γεγονέναι.
English Standard Version
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Ps 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."
Ps 33:6 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."
Isa 45:18 "...he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): 'I am the LORD, and there is no other.'"
John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
Rom 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."
Col 1:16–17 "All things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Heb 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."
Older English Bibles render this "the worlds," and that translation has been pressed into service as a biblical multiverse. It will not bear the weight. Αἰών is fundamentally a word for an age, a span of time, and in the plural it means the whole created order considered across its duration — time and everything in it. The ESV's "the universe" catches the sense correctly. Hebrews is not counting worlds; it is saying that the entire stretch of what exists was fitted together (κατηρτίσθαι) by a spoken word, and that the visible did not come from the visible. That last clause, incidentally, is one of the strongest scriptural supports for creation out of nothing.
A perfect tense: a state established in the past and still standing. Paul is not saying Christ started things and stepped back; he is saying the cohesion of everything is a present, continuous act of the Son. This is the verse that decides how a Christian should think about physical law in the first place. Laws are not a rival explanation to God — they are the description of how God ordinarily and faithfully upholds what he made. That is why discovering a deeper law has never once, in the history of the church, been a defeat for the doctrine of creation.
Paul builds a deliberate paradox: the ἀόρατα ("invisible things") of God are καθορᾶται ("clearly seen"). The compound verb intensifies — seen right down, perceived thoroughly. And note his epistemology: it is τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα, "being understood by means of the things that have been made." Paul expects the creation to be reasoned about. He is not asking anyone to stop looking through the telescope. He is saying that what you find there, when you reason honestly about it, does not terminate in itself.
Isaiah's God says he did not make the earth εἰς κενόν — "for emptiness," "to no purpose" — but κατοικεῖσθαι, "to be inhabited." The Hebrew behind "empty" is תֹהוּ (tohu), the same word as Genesis 1:2. This is the sharpest scriptural contrast to the multiverse's implied picture. In an anthropic ensemble, habitability is a filter we passed through by accident, and the overwhelming majority of reality is waste. In Isaiah, habitability is the stated intention of the one who made it. Those are two genuinely different accounts of why anyone is here.
The Greek word the New Testament uses for the world means, at root, order — the same root that gives us "cosmetic," something arranged well. It was the philosophers' word before it was the apostles': to call the universe a κόσμος at all was already to claim it is ordered rather than chaotic. Paul stands in Athens and takes the word over: "The God who made the world (τὸν κόσμον) and everything in it... he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything" (Acts 17:24–25). He is speaking to Stoics and Epicureans — the ancient world's own naturalists — and he does not begin by attacking their observations. He begins by naming who stands behind them.
In the Hebrew Bible this verb takes only God as its subject — never a human craftsman. It is not the ordinary word for making or shaping something out of available material; it marks a divine act in a class of its own. This word will matter directly in Part Nine, because Joseph Smith staked a central doctrinal claim on the assertion that בָּרָא means "to organise" pre-existing matter rather than to create. Note also the LXX's choice: ἐποίησεν, from ποιέω — and it is the cognate noun ποιήμασιν, "the things made," that Paul reaches for in Romans 1:20.
This question comes up often enough to deserve a direct answer, and the answer requires care and courtesy. Latter-day Saints are our neighbours in this county, and a great many of them are people of real personal devotion. Misrepresenting what they believe would be both a sin and a tactical blunder. So let us do what we always do: read their texts, ask who wrote them and to whom, and then ask what the physics actually bears on.
First, a fact worth stating plainly: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach the physics multiverse. It has never issued a doctrinal statement about eternal inflation or the string landscape. The parallel is drawn by popular writers on both sides, not by the Church. We are examining an argument that circulates informally, not an official position.
"Worlds without number"
The Latter-day Saint scriptures do teach a plurality of worlds, and they teach it vividly. In the Book of Moses, God tells Moses that "worlds without number have I created... and by the Son I created them," while adding that only "an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof" is given (Moses 1:33, 35). Doctrine and Covenants 76:24 says that "by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." The Book of Abraham describes Kolob, a great star "nearest unto the throne of God," governing time (Abraham 3:2–4, 9).
Now read what that says. These are many inhabited worlds within one created order, all made by the same God, through the same Son, populated by his offspring, and located in a single reckoning of time and space that Kolob governs. That is a claim about how much God has made — and it stands in a long tradition. Christians have debated the "plurality of worlds" since at least the sixteenth century, and long before Joseph Smith: Giordano Bruno argued for it in 1584, and Fontenelle popularised it for European drawing rooms in 1686.
Who wrote these texts, and for whom
Our standard method applies here as everywhere. The Book of Moses came through Joseph Smith in 1830–31 as part of his revision of Genesis; the Book of Abraham was published in 1842; the relevant sections of the Doctrine and Covenants date from the 1830s and 1840s. The audience was a young American religious movement under intense pressure, in a nation then gripped by revival, restorationist fervour, and popular fascination with astronomy and the plurality of worlds — a subject that filled the lecture halls and periodicals of the 1830s.
That context does not settle whether the texts are true. It does establish what questions they were engaging: they are speaking into a nineteenth-century conversation about the extent of God's creation and the destiny of human beings. They are not addressing a twentieth-century argument about vacuum states in a string landscape, and reading that argument into them tells you nothing about either.
Where Latter-day Saint theology genuinely departs — and why the physics does not help
The distinctive claims are not about how many worlds there are. They are about what God is, and there are three:
1. Matter and intelligence are eternal and uncreated. "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29); "The elements are eternal" (93:33). In the King Follett Discourse of April 1844, Joseph Smith argued this from the Hebrew directly, holding that the word behind "created" means to organise pre-existing material, so that God did not create matter but organised chaotic matter that always existed.
2. God is embodied and located. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (D&C 130:22).
3. God was once a man, and men may become gods. Lorenzo Snow's couplet of 1840 — as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be — and the promise of D&C 132:20, "then shall they be gods." In fairness: the Church's own Gospel Topics essay "Becoming Like God" (2014) treats the first half of that couplet cautiously, noting how little is claimed to be known about it. It should not be presented as though every Latter-day Saint holds it in the same form.
Why the multiverse cuts against this rather than for it
Now put the physics next to those three claims, and watch which direction the evidence actually runs.
Against claim 1. The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem is a problem specifically for eternally existing matter. It says that an expanding cosmos — a single universe or an inflating multiverse — cannot be extended infinitely into the past. A theology built on matter that always existed and was merely organised is in more difficulty after 2003, not less. Classical Christian theism, which has taught creation out of nothing since the second century, is in none.
Against claims 2 and 3 — and this is the heart of it. Ask what kind of being could explain a multiverse. It would have to be something that is not itself one more item inside the ensemble; something not made of the matter whose existence is in question; something that does not depend on space and time, because space and time are precisely what needs accounting for. A God who has a physical body, who occupies a location near a particular star, who was once a mortal man in an earlier world and progressed to divinity, is a being within the system. He is part of the thing that requires explanation. He cannot ground it.
So the inference runs backwards from the popular intuition. If a multiverse were ever confirmed, it would press harder on a finite, embodied, once-mortal God — because it would enlarge, enormously, the contingent reality that such a God is himself embedded in and cannot account for. The God who can answer the question is the God of Colossians 1:17: the one who is before all things, in whom all things hold together.
The plain answer to the question, then: no. A multiverse would not be evidence for Mormonism. Its scriptures describe many inhabited worlds in one creation, not many creations with different laws; the parallel is a concordist reading rather than a prediction; and on the points where Latter-day Saint theology is genuinely distinctive — eternal uncreated matter, an embodied and exalted God — the cosmology tells against it. Note carefully that this is not an argument against Latter-day Saints. It is an argument about which doctrine of God can carry the weight the question puts on it. Those conversations are worth having with our neighbours, in person, kindly, and from the texts.
Keep going
Other studies in the Faith & Reason track at Pleasant Springs.
|
Did this study bless you today? 💚 Give to Support PS Church100% of gifts go to the General Fund — thank you. |
This lesson online: ps-church.com/discipleship/the-multiverse-and-god
More Faith & Reason studies: ps-church.com/discipleship
Scripture set in the Septuagint (LXX) and the ESV, per the practice of Pleasant Springs Church. Cosmology from Tegmark, Scientific American (May 2003); Planck Collaboration 2018 results VI and 2013 results XXVI; Feeney, Johnson, Mortlock & Peiris, PRL 107 (2011); Kashlinsky et al., ApJL 686 (2008); Weinberg, PRL 59 (1987); Bousso & Polchinski (2000); Borde, Guth & Vilenkin, PRL 90 (2003); Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind (1989); Ellis & Silk, Nature 516 (2014); Steinhardt, Nature 510 (2014). Philosophy from Hacking, Mind 96 (1987); White, Noûs 34 (2000); Manson & Thrush (2003); Juhl (2005); Bradley (2009); Friederich, Multiverse Theories (Cambridge, 2021); Collins in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009); Kraay, ed., God and the Multiverse (Routledge, 2014). Latter-day Saint teaching quoted from its own scriptures and from the Church's Gospel Topics essay "Becoming Like God" (2014).