Question:

Some atheists posted this on Reasonable faith facebook page:  http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/penrose-claims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang      http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Science/article1261602.ece

Is it true that these is evidence of a multiverse?  would the Kalam cosmological argument be refuted by this kind of data?   What do you think about these articles?  Are there any famous physicists that endorse kalam?   What about British actor Hugh Laurie, known for his lead role on the medical drama “House,” who confirmed his atheism in a 2007 interview with The Sunday Telegraph. “I don’t believe in God,” he said, “but I have this idea that if there were a God, or destiny of some kind looking down on us, that if he saw you taking anything for granted, he’d take it away.”   Do you recommend a Christian seeing Dr.House?   Thanks a lot!

Answer:

No, there is not any evidence for multiple universes. To speak more carefully, there is some data from the cosmic background microwave radiation which one controversial (but also very famous) cosmologist has highly speculatively attributed as evidence of a universe within which our universe was created. Again, this is a highly speculative theory and the vast majority of cosmologists will NOT agree with Penrose’s interpretation of the data. Penrose is fishing around for evidence to support a theory he believes in, in my opinion, for partially philosophical reasons. The chances that this will pan out as evidence for a multiverse theory is very small. It is not an accident that atheists pick up on this speculative idea so quickly. They do so for philosophical, not for scientific reasons. Their support should be taken for what it is worth.

Even if the multiverse theory gained support–a very big if–it is not clear what this would do to the Kalaam argument. It might cause the cosmological argument to weaken somewhat, but non-believers would still have to explain how anything exists, rather than nothing at all. Causality would still be an argument for God.

The Kalaam argument is a philosophical, not a scientific one, so most scientists will not generaly comment one way or another on this philosophical argument. I am a believer and I do not mention the Kalaam argument when I talk about cosmology in my classes because it is not a scientific argument. Believing scientists, of course, will agree with this argument. So, in order to find scientists who agree with the Kalaam cosmological argument, just think of a scientist who is a believer. Over half the scientists I have known believe in God. Francis Collins, the head of the NIH comes to mind. I heard him give a public lecture and he used the existence of the universe and the evidence for the big bang as evidence for God.

I really have nothing to say about Hugh Laurie. I like the show House, but Laurie’s opinion about God is not relevant to me. Who is Hugh Laurie? He is an actor–a pretty good one, by the way. Who made him a spokesperson for the question of God? Is he a theologian or a philosopher? The fact that he is an atheist would not prevent me from watching the show. If we will not watch shows acted in by unbelievers, then we probably would not watch any TV at all. I cannot see the point of boycotting House because one of its actors does not believe in God.

John Oakes