Doesn't multiverse theory render skepticism meaningless?

If I understand correctly, the multiverse means that there are an infinite number of universes where all possibilities exist, correct? In other words, for example, somewhere out there, there is a universe where bigfoot is real and where every episode of Friends actually happened. Right?

So in this multiverse, there must exist an equal number of universes where God exists and where he does not. So in that case, doesn’t this kind of render skepticism meaningless? The whole point of skepticism is that we look at the world we are living in and draw conclusions based on our observations and what we know about science, etc. And people will conclude that because they can’t see evidence of God, then God does not exist. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is equally likely that we live in a universe where he does but doesn’t reveal himself in the way we would like. People have said that believing in God is like believing in the tooth fairy or leprechauns. But there is just as much likelihood that we live in a universe where they exist too. Perhaps leprechauns are the reason why my car keys ended up in the diaper bag the other day.

I have heard people argue that the multiverse negates the need for God. In my opinion it proves just the opposite.

Believing in multiverse is a bit like believing in leprechauns. Maybe the leprechaun moved your keys. Maybe the multiverse made our improbable universe probable. I remain skeptical.

All that assumes that a “multiverse” is somehow different from one, giant universe.

Yes, I know, there is an illusion that each “universe” in the so-called “multiverse” appears to be a parallel world. But if they are all happening at the same time - indeed, if all exist - how can one say they really exist apart from each other in a meaningful way? You may as well say my sister’s room is a universe apart from the living room, or that Tudor-occupied Ireland is a different universe from the Republic of Ireland - poetic, but specifically incorrect.

This belongs in the philosophy forum.

Your argument only works if the concept of God you start with is one where he can be or not be. What you get, then, is a plurality of limited gods that exist in separate multiverses. But that would be unacceptable to Catholic theology which presents one creator God that sustains the universe and all possible universes.

But your point could be used in a different way to highlight that multiverse theory has no empirical evidence to back it. It is all theoretical. There appears to be a debate right now among physicists about whether you can call multiverse theory a scientific theory at all since it is untestable.

God bless,

However unlikely or likely the multiverse is, I think the point of those who propose it (at least in relation to the existence of God), is that it is a simpler, natural explanation compared to God.

Even if our universe is just one in a great multiverse, I don’t think it necessarily follows that every possible universe exists. It could be a huge number of universes, just as there are a seemingly uncountable number of stars in the universe at any one time, but ultimately a finite number.

Or maybe even infinite, but even if there were an infinite number, that would also not entail that every possible universe exists. For example, there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. However, I would not claim that all possible numbers are between 0 and 1. Another example: If we remove all odd numbers, there are still an infinite amount of even numbers.

Either way, God would still be the ultimate metaphysical being, above all universes or multiverses or multi-multiverses. There would not be a different God for each universe, nor would his being be confined to any one. The only possible universes anyway would be ones in which God exists, anyway.

A multiverse is about multiple physical universes, not infinite realities. The qualifier “possible” seems to exclude an infinite number, but even if it didn’t, it would still exclude impossibilities, such as a world without God, or from an atheist’s point of view a world with God. Therefore, there is no common frame of reference here. Not to mention that the physical universe (or multiverse) does not encompass God. It belongs to the natural order, both in theory and in fact.

That concept of the multiverse is not the one I’m familiar with. The one I’m familiar with says that there’s a world-generating world behind the one we live in. In the world-generating world, we don’t know what laws of physics apply, so perhaps whole worlds in that place spontaneously pop up out of nothing, zap zap zap, with different laws of physics governing each one.

To me, my understanding of multiverse theory is quite different from yours. But yours does not appear to involve any logical contradictions, so I can’t really say yours is Not the real multiverse theory. Will the real multiverse theory please stand up?

So in this multiverse, there must exist an equal number of universes where God exists and where he does not.

Philosophically that wouldn’t work. There can’t logically be multiple Gods. If all of them were exactly identical in every way with no exceptions, then they would be the same being. If even one of them had something the others did not, then none of the others would actually be God. Therefore, logically, there can only be one God over all universes. (If there Are other universes, that is.)

So in that case, doesn’t this kind of render skepticism meaningless?

Perhaps, and there is another thing that I think the multiverse theory suggests: you can’t escape the need for omnipotence behind the world. The multiverse theory that I’m familiar with says that the world-generating world creates universes out of nothing all the time and randomly, zap zap zap. They explain this by saying that perhaps the laws of physics that We know don’t apply there. To me, that is the same thing as saying “With the multiverse, all things are possible,” just as we say “With God, all things are possible.” They are essentially still positing an omnipotent power as the source of all things, they are just denying that it is a person. Instead, they say it’s random.

I have heard people argue that the multiverse negates the need for God. In my opinion it proves just the opposite.

I agree.

“Natural”, yes - in that it is materialistic and naturalistic. Simpler… how so?

I’ve heard it called “simpler”, but I’ve never really understood why. God seems like a pretty simple concept to me - infinitely simple, in fact.

I have heard theories on multiverses from some scientists who apparently can mathematically prove 11, 18, etc different dimensions/ universes, exist, but then some claim there are different ‘multiverses’ for every single choice made by every single person that has ever lived, so I chose to go out and quit my job tomorrow, instead of working, there would be a separate multiverse where I am unemployed, but if this were true and for every person, the number would be infinite and constantly increasing, so that really doesnt make sense.

I do believe there are other dimensions that exist, but whatever they are and whatever they contain, was still created by the one true God, and he has ultimate power over them, we are not given this information, and until it is and/or somehow effects our lives here, I guess it really doesnt matter in the end. However I think when we die, we will get to learn about all these things we wonder about, and it will probably all make complete sense to us, we will wonder how we never recognized these things while alive.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit