Multi-worlds universes and God's sovereignty

Some scientists, and others, believe that it is possible that there is a multiverse. Trivial example: I purchase an ice cream cone. I can choose chocolate ice cream, or butter pecan. The universe lets me do both, but splits, and, in each case, goes on from there, with a chocolate universe, and a butter pecan universe. In other words, lots of universes, a multiverse. Each choice I can make causes the universe to split, again. Philip Pullman's fiction, the "His Dark Materials" works, are set in such a multi-universe.

Travis Perry, writing on the Speculative Faith blog, has considered the possibility that the choices we make create alternative universes, and the question of whether God could have allowed such a situation. If there were such alternate universes, would, or could, there be a unique Bible for each? Or at least, for each major moral choice -- for example, a world where Adam and Eve never fell, or one where the Jewish authorities accepted the Gospel?

Perry doesn't believe in the many-worlds interpretation, but his thoughts are interesting.

Thanks for reading. Read Perry.

Washington Post columnist on the question of whether God began the universe

It’s not often that you can read a column, on the editorial page of a newspaper, about scientific evidence for God's activity in creation. But Michael Gerson, of the Washington Post (his column is syndicated, and our local daily newspaper, the Greenville News, prints some of his columns) has done just that. 

Gerson points out that there are a number of physical constants and properties that are “just right” -- The Goldilocks effect -- if they weren’t what they are, or very close to that, life, perhaps even atoms, would be impossible. This could be an amazing coincidence, but that seems to be a serious stretch.

Does this absolutely prove that there is a God? No. See the verse at the top of this web page. It takes faith to believe that the universe was planned by a Divine Creator, and people without such faith are not likely to be convinced. If one doesn't believe in God at all, one isn't going to believe that He had anything to do with the way things began. One alternative explanation for our existence is that there are many universes -- so-called multiverses. We are in one of these universes where the conditions are right for life. There may be an infinite variety of universes where life, even matter, would not be possible. There’s no proof of that, and not even any evidence for it. (It’s hard for me to imagine how we could get such evidence!)

For more information on the Goldilocks effect, see here. There is a Wikipedia article on the Anthropic Principle, which exists in more than one form, but is about how conditions in the universe are compatible with our existence. Here’s my evaluation of the position of Richard Dawkins, the most prominent atheistic scientist of our time, on the question.

Gerson quotes Max Tegmark, a scientist who believes that there are multiverses: “To me, an unexplained coincidence can be a telltale sign of a gap in our scientific understanding. Dismissing it by saying, ‘We got lucky — now stop looking for an explanation!’ is not only unsatisfactory, but also tantamount to ignoring a potentially crucial clue.”

Indeed. Thanks for reading.

Hawking's Grand Design and God's Not Dead

Stephen Hawking is one of the best-known scientists of our time. When he retired, he was occupying the same professorial chair that Isaac Newton once did. He is also an outspoken atheist.

In 2010, Hawking, in collaboration with Leonard Mlodinow, wrote The Grand Design, which became a best-seller, in spite of its non-fiction status and scientific content. The book argues that it is not necessary to suppose that God created the universe. It also says that "philosophy is dead," and suggests that the search for a unified field theory is futile, so it isn't exactly shy about attacking significant ideas. What they seem to mean by "philosophy is dead" is that some philosophers are not willing to agree with them on all points.

The Grand Design was referred to in the recent movie, God's Not Dead.  (See here for my review of that film. That review includes the pivotal quotation from The Grand Design, which was used in the movie. That quotation is the second and third sentences from the second quotation from the book, below.) God's Not Dead did not claim that the existence of God can be proved, but that His existence cannot be disproved. The Grand Design doesn't disprove God's existence, although the authors seem to think that it does, or that it almost does.

As indicated above, Hawking and Mlodinow weren't bashful. They claim, on page 32, that "recent experiments" have shown that our brains operate according to physical laws. There are no notes in the book, so I don't know what experiments they were referring to, but never mind. What other laws would our brains operate by? They claim that, because our brains operate by physical laws, "[f]ree will is an illusion," (p. 32) but are willing for us to act as if we really did have free will. That's a good thing, because if we don't have free will, Hawking and Mlodinow didn't, either, and they therefore believe the things that they do, not because they are true, but because of the physical laws operating in their brains. (And, by the way, if that discussion isn't a matter for philosophy, I don't know what is.)

The fundamental argument of The Grand Design is that there are really many, very many universes, according to M-theory, and that we exist in one of those that is compatible with life. All those universes came into being somehow, and here we are, in this one, the result of a cosmic accident. There are some serious problems with this notion. One of them is that even Hawking and Mlodinow aren't sure what M-theory is:
No one seems to know what the "M" stands for, but it may be "master," "miracle," or "mystery." It seems to be all three. People are still trying to decipher the nature of M-theory, but that may not be possible. It could be that the physicist's traditional expectation of a single theory of nature is untenable, and there exists no single formulation. It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied. (p. 117)

The above is a quotation from the book. That quotation indicates that, whatever M-theory might be, if it is true here, it isn't true elsewhere. That, and their fuzzy description, don't inspire confidence in science based on M-theory.

Another serious problem is that there is no experimental proof for M-theory and its relatives. Granted, a few decades ago, there was no experimental proof for quarks, which were proposed as a way of making sense out of the many types of sub-atomic particles then thought to exist, and, hence, there was skepticism about their existence. But that skepticism has largely disappeared, and there is experimental evidence for the existence of quarks. However, quarks, so far as we know, are the same everywhere in the universe. Quark theory didn't propose that there were different kinds of quarks, or no quarks at all, in other universes. It's not clear that, even if other universes exist, we can access them in any way, which would be necessary, I think, to vindicate M-theory.

Then there's the matter of gravity. 
Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. [Chapter Title - "Choosing Our Universe."] Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. (p. 180.)
But why is there gravity? If they explain that, I missed it, or didn't understand it. And even if gravity had the power to make the universe create itself from nothing, wouldn't the powers of gravity be different in all the other different universes, according to their own thesis? So why should other universes exist?

Another serious problem is that scientists, and others, are not universally in agreement with Hawking and Mlodinow's central idea, mostly because of the first two serious problems indicated above.

Peter Woit, of Columbia University, has written a severely critical review of The Grand Design. Woit wrote:
I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me. . . . [T]hinking about it, [I] have to admit that the kind of pseudo-science going on here and being promoted in this book isn’t obviously any better than the faith-based explanations of how the world works favored by conventional religions.
Well put, except that there shouldn't be "science/religion wars." If we really understood God's revelation in Christ, in the Bible, through the church, and in nature (which science unfolds for us) we would see that our existence is best explained by accepting, by faith, that God planned for our universe, and us, to exist. See Hebrews 11:3, which is quoted in the graphic at the top of this post.

I know of no evidence that Woit is a Christian. For other criticisms of the book, see its Wikipedia article.

See also the recent opinion piece in Time, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God."

Thanks for reading!

The fundamental properties of the universe

These six numbers constitute a 'recipe' for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned' there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the 'right' combination. -Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. Basic Books, 2001, page 4.

Rees's six numbers are these: N, the strength of the electrical forces between sub-atomic particles, compared to the gravitational pull between them, Epsilon, which measures the binding of atomic nuclei, Omega, which is related to the expansion of the universe, lambda, which Rees says is related to cosmic antigravity, and is thus also related to how the universe expands, Q, which is the ratio between two types of fundamental energies, and the number of dimensions, 3, in the universe. I'm not a cosmologist, and I don't think I understand any of these, except maybe the last one. See here for a little more information on these numbers, from the Wikipedia. However, I do understand that Rees is saying something profound. He has no explanation as to why his six numbers are exactly what they are, but, if they weren't, either we wouldn't exist, or the universe, and any life in it, would be seriously different. I prefer to believe that the values of these important physical relationships, and our existence, are "the providence of a benign Creator."

I don't know whether there are alternate universes, with different sets of physical constants and laws. Perhaps, perhaps not. Nor should either possibility shake one's faith in God, if she has such.

If God produced these six numbers, He might well have also produced moral constants. One such, which, also, I make no claim to understand, but which the Bible is quite clear on, is that disobedience to God must be paid for by a blood sacrifice. In the Old Testament, the sinner furnished this. In the New, God the Son did.

If you want to read more about the scientific and philosophical question of whether the universe was made for us, or we are as we are because the universe is the way it is, read the Wikipedia article on the Anthropic Principle.

Thanks for reading.

The Big Bang, second edition

I understand that there are conservative Christians who reject the idea of a Big Bang. I suppose that most of these, at least the ones who can give a good reason for such rejection, do so either because they believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or because, in their minds, the Big Bang is associated with evolution, which they reject.

As to the first, it is possible, indeed, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. (But see this post, and others, on a book by a believing Christian, scientist, and Bible scholar, David Snoke, entitled A Biblical Case for an Old Earth.) Even if the earth were only a few thousand years old, the Bible does not explicitly say that the universe is the same age as the earth. I don't see anything in the Bible that would rule out an ancient universe.

I also take two Biblical statements seriously. These are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20, both of which tell us that one of God's ways of revealing himself to us is through what nature tells us. Much of what nature tells us, especially about things which are very small, very large, or very far away, or were very long ago, can come to us only though scientific findings. These findings may be mistaken at times, but they should certainly not be rejected out of hand. There is good scientific evidence that there was a Big Bang, and that it took place a very long time ago.

The Big Bang was not proposed as some sort of anti-God crusade. On the contrary, the first good evidence for a Big Bang was discovered by accident, by scientists who weren't looking for such evidence. The Big Bang, as an explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it, is taken by some scientists, even unbelieving scientists, as evidence for the existence of a divine Creator. For example, here's what the late Robert Jastrow wrote, about the discovery of evidence for the Big Bang, in his book, God and the Astronomers:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (New York: Warner Books, 1978, pp. 105-106.) Jastrow, according to the Wikipedia article on him, was not a Christian, but an agnostic. However, he believed that science had no explanation for what came before, or caused, the Big Bang, and acknowledged that the Judeo-Christian religions do have an explanation, namely that an eternal God began the universe with a supernatural act, or acts, such as the Big Bang. When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, as Jastrow indicated, there were scientists who were pretty upset about the idea, because there was no good explanation for what caused it, or what, if anything, came before it. There still isn't an explanation that has been proved experimentally, although there have been attempts at such explanations, most notably by Stephen Hawking.

Acceptance of the idea of a Big Bang was slow. The evidence for a Big Bang is good, considering how long ago it would have happened, and the idea is accepted by most scientists. The evidence for it, to me, is an important part of God's revelation to us.

As to the connection to evolution, there is no direct connection. In the first place, evolution, like any controversial subject, should be defined before it is discussed at all. This, unfortunately, happens only rarely. In the second place, evolution is a biological process. The Big Bang was a physical process.

What Christians should be concerned about, even if they have the wrong name for it, is not evolution, but naturalism. That's what most conservative Christians really mean when they say that they don't believe in evolution. (There is good evidence, generally accepted, for at least some types of evolution. The most ardent Young-Earth Creationist scientists believe that humans evolved into more than one race, or ethnic group*, since the time of Noah, for example.) Naturalism is the idea that there are natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations for everything. It is, therefore, a form of atheism. Naturalism is believed by many scientists, and others, although there is no definitive evidence for it. The most prominent naturalist is Richard Dawkins, a competent biologist, but also a popular writer, crusading against Christianity and other religions. But even Dawkins does not claim that he has disproved God's existence, which, if he had, would prove naturalism.

The Bible begins with a statement that, if true, destroys naturalism: In the beginning, God created . . . Genesis 1 doesn't tell us when, why, or how. It does tell us that there was a Who. Naturalism says that there wasn't, and isn't, any Who. Christians believe that there was, and is. Undoubtedly, some people who believe in naturalism do so because, if it were true, it would mean that there are no Divinely created moral laws, and they want to believe that there aren't any such.

If someone says that the Big Bang event proves that there is no God, they are mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, supposing that God started the universe with a Big Bang makes good sense. If someone says that evolution, however defined, proves that there is no God, they are similarly mistaken. There is no such proof. On the contrary, God may have used natural selection, the Big Bang, or both, as part of His method of making things like they are now. Knowledge and prior planning like that would be as wonderful, or more so, as creating every type of atom, and every type of living thing, from scratch.

It's not the Bible, but the movie, God's Not Dead, was generally well-received by the conservative Christian community. (The more recent movie, Do You Believe? was made by the same group, and there was also a God's Not Dead 2.) See here for my review of God's not Dead. In that review, I point out that the fictional main Christian character accepts the ideas that God used the Big Bang, and evolution to bring the world to its current state, in his defense of the existence of God.

As Hebrews 11 puts it: 3 By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible (World English Bible, public domain).

Some Christians, and others, claim that atheists/naturalists have no ground for finding purpose and meaning in life, or in existence. This article claims they do, indeed, have reason for meaning and purpose.

This post is revised from a previous one, now removed. Thanks for reading.

Notes

The paragraphs beginning "It's not the Bible," and "Some Christians, and others," were added on February 3, 2016.

*Note added, December 23, 2015. This originally was "type," rather than "race, or ethnic group." As I understand it, that original wording led to the first comment below. Sorry for the confusion that caused.

Note added, August 1, 2013. Commenter Laginestra (see below) points out that the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the origin of the universe, but the early development of the the universe. In other words, it doesn't specify where the universe, if it began with a big bang, came from. The universe had to be present, in some form, before there could have been a big bang. However, most people, including me at times, don't realize that, or don't make that distinction. Stephen Hawking is one scientist who has attempted to explain the origin of the universe. I thank the commenter for that important distinction.

Added, May 17, 2014. Here's a good article on the history of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang. The article also considers the possibility of multiple universes.

Added, May 29, 2014. Here's a good article the history of the idea of a Big Bang. Fred Hoyle, apparently an atheist, believed in a steady-state universe, one which didn't need some sort of start, apparently for religious reasons. (He was anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.) Hoyle is responsible for the term, "Big Bang," which was meant to be a mockery of the idea.

On January 23, 2017, the post was slightly edited for English usage mistakes.

Veiled Rose by Anne Elisabeth Stengl

I have recently read Veiled Rose by Anne Elisabeth Stengl. The book is the second in a series. Three have been published, and the fourth is due out next month. Here's my post on the first book, Heartless. There is not a Wikipedia article on Stengl, or her books, as yet. Here is the Amazon page for the author, and she has a blog, which sometimes includes material on her books.

Heartless was the author's first novel. There was no sign of her lack of experience in that book, and there is none in this one. The characters are three-dimensional, the plot is complex, and not easily predictable, there are a multitude of settings. The second book is mostly about events that took place before those in the first book, but they are told from a different viewpoint, and this unusual time sequence should not hinder readers. Either book should be enjoyable on its own.

I will try not to give away the plot in this post, but will muse on certain aspects of Veiled Rose.

First, a little about the world of Goldstone Wood. The land (perhaps a continent, perhaps an entire world) is divided into uplands, where humans live, by lowlands, where they don't. There are bridges between the uplands, not made by mortals. Stengl has also divided the lands into the Near World, which, as I understand it, contains the uplands, the Between, which contains the lowlands, and the Far World. (See here for more on this, from Stengl.) Fairies can enter the Near World, where mortals live, but they also live in the Between, and perhaps in the Far World. These three are perhaps three different dimensions, or three different universes, co-inhabiting the same space. Stengl doesn't make a huge deal of this -- her characters, and their lives, are more important -- but the idea of living in more than one world at once definitely adds to the book. Tolkien, for one, had a similar construction, as his elves and their evil adversaries lived in two worlds at the same time. But their appearance was different, depending on which world they were seen in. In Stengl, the appearance of a character seems to be the same in whichever World they are found. (Some characters, such as dragons and fairy knights, have two different forms, but they can take these without changing Worlds.)

There are Paths, made by the fairies, within the Near World, and, probably the other Worlds. Characters who can find those Paths can move rapidly between locations.

Stengl is a bit coy about these aspects of her sub-creation: "So we know of at least three realms of existence, three levels of reality. Might there be more?" Perhaps she didn't know, herself, when she wrote that, in June of 2011. Perhaps she did, but wasn't going to tell us yet.

Second, the characters. One of the main characters in the book is Lionheart, who is also known as Leo, and by other names. He is the crown prince of one of the realms in the Near World, and young enough to play in the woods, but old enough that he is allowed to play in them without supervision. The second main character is Rosie. Lionheart meets Rosie, a girl, perhaps human, perhaps not, while playing in the wood. Rosie's origin is uncertain, and she doesn't know it herself. She always wears a veil. Lionheart doesn't know why, but doesn't really care, as she becomes his best friend. But their friendship has restrictions. She doesn't come into the castle where he lives, and he can't always go into the woods to be with her. Their friendship, by the way, seems to be quite innocent. Perhaps they are somewhat in love with each other, but perhaps not. Very few people have seen Rosie, and when people do, many of them think she is some sort of monster. She can use the Paths, at least the ones in her area, and take Lionheart on them.

Third, evil beings. One type of evil beings is the dragons. The dragons are like dragons in many other books -- they can send fire out of their mouths, they can fly, they are intelligent and can speak, they can trap unwary humans who look into their eyes, or listen to them too willingly. But, like at least one of the dragons of Ursula Le Guin's Tehanu, they can exist in human form or dragon form.

There is some other sort of evil being, perhaps also a dragon, in the books. There are at least two of these, who have the power to tempt by speaking directly to the mind of mortals. The two are in some sort of competition. The theology, or whatever it should be called, of the Goldstone Wood books is complex, and much of it is not merely an imaginary replication of Christian theology, or any other kind that I am aware of. I do believe, as I indicated in the post on the previous work, that the Goldstone Wood books are written with a Christian world-view, but that the fact that it's only a world-view, not the message of the books, is a plus, as I see it.

Fourth, I will say this about the plot. Rosie and Lionheart do not get married in this book. There are other characters, one of them named Daylily, who has decided to do what her father wants her to, and get Lionheart to marry her. He doesn't do that, either. Daylily is a complex character, and a strong one, and there are things that she does that I didn't expect.

More could be said, but I'll stop. I will confess that I have already read the third book in the series. In fact, I've read all three books twice.

Thanks for reading.

Intelligent Design and the Multiverse

Jack Scanlan, who is by no means a fan of Intelligent Design, discusses the matter of the multiverse. At least some Intelligent Design advocates claim that the idea of a multiverse has been proposed to get around the notion that the universe is finely tuned for life, hence, serves as an argument against Intelligent Design. Scanlan says that, if there is such a thing as a multiverse, it would by no means rule out Intelligent Design.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Thanks for reading.

The Three Pigs and Tuesday by David Wiesner

I don't usually report on books intended for young children, but I am making an exception for The Three Pigs by David Wiesner. The book won the Caldecott medal for 2002. It deserved it. The book is simple to read. The book shows, using the children's story of the three little pigs, an artistic conception of multiple universes, or at least multiple possible existences. I haven't tried reading it to my five-year-old grandson, and I don't know what he would think of it, but I liked it, and his mother and aunt, and grandmother, did, too.

A splendid book. Read it, if you have a chance -- your local library should have it. Look carefully at the pictures.

Wiesner has also written, or, rather, made the illustrations, for Tuesday. (The only text in the book is an occasional mention of the time -- it's about what happens on a Tuesday night.) Tuesday won the Caldecott medal in 1992, and, again, deserved it. The illustrations combine whimsy with great detail. Let's just say that the book is about flying frogs, and urge you to look at a copy.

Thanks for reading.

The God Delusion and disproving God's existence: Dawkins argues from chance

I have been posting on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. In this post, which will be the last in the series, unless there are comments that need to be addressed in a full post, or unless I simply decide to post on the subject (It's my blog!) I wish to discuss Dawkins' central argument for the non-existence of God.

Dawkins discusses the Anthropic Principle. This has to do with the apparently very narrow constraints that astronomical facts, properties of matter, and physical laws place on the existence of life as we know it. For example, if the earth were a little closer to the sun, there wouldn't be enough liquid water for life. If the earth were a little further from the sun, there wouldn't be enough, either, because so much of it would be ice. But, of course, we are here! Why? One response is that there is a supernatural God who has planned things that way. Richard Dawkins will have none of that explanation, of course. I agree with him that this is an unprovable idea, and I believe that there is even scriptural proof that it is unprovable, but I believe it, nonetheless. Hebrews 11:3 says "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." (ESV) Note that this says "by faith." Although the verse does not say that it is impossible to prove this, I think it means that. (I also believe that it is impossible to disprove it, and Dawkins, to his credit, does not make that claim. He does think that he has gotten very close, though!)

Why does Dawkins think he has gotten so close? He has done the opposite of believing in divine planning. Here's what he says, in reference to six physical constants, as discussed by astronomer Martin Rees, in his book, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, 2000:
I won't go through the rest of Rees's six numbers. The bottom line for each of them is the same. The actual number sits in a Goldilocks band of values outside which life would not have been possible. How should we respond to this? . . . The theist says that God, when setting up the universe, tuned the fundamental constants . . . so that each one lay in its Goldilocks zone for the production of life. . . . As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained. A God capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself, and that's very improbable indeed . . . (p. 143)

Say what? In the first place, it is not clear, at least to me, that God would have to be as improbable as such a combination of numbers, and I'm not alone. Of course, to a theist, God isn't improbable at all. The probability of His existence is 1.0. In the second place, assuming that God's existence is extremely improbable, how does Dawkins explain our existence? He claims -- I am not making this up -- that there are a great many universes, with many combinations of properties, and we just happen to live in one with a suitable combination. To quote Dawkins:
The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly unprobable in the same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each of these universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence. (p. 147)

So, let me get this straight. The existence of a supernatural God is highly improbable, but the existence of multiple universes is not?

Multiple universes have not been scientifically proved, or disproved. Richard Dawkins is asking us to forsake belief in a supernatural creator, in favor of belief that we are living in one of an infinite number of possible universes. He also wants us to accept that the latter possibility is orders of magnitude much simpler, and more probable, than the possibility of a supernatural Creator. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with God.

Here's my previous post on Dawkins.

Thanks for reading. I made some editorial changes on June 25, 2011.

More than one universe? Robert Mann's take.

As you may be aware, there are physicists who believe that there are multiple universes. They believe, for example, that the universe I am in somehow spawns two different ones, depending on whether or not I decide to pick up a pen or not -- it one, I did, in the other, I didn't. The Wikipedia article on the subject says that the concept goes back at least to the 19th century. Even though it is hard to imagine any possible experimental proof for this idea, it has a following. Some authors of fantastic literature have produced sub-creations, based on the concept. One such was Philip Pullman.

In the latest issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith -- which is not yet available on-line -- Robert B. Mann discusses "The Puzzle of Existence," considering the interesting question of why some things exist, and some things don't. It is hard, for example, to believe that there couldn't have been more species of butterflies than there are and have been, or that the only possible asteroids were those that we have known about, or that our parents could not have had other children than us.

One reason that some things don't exist is that the laws of physics, or the properties of chemistry and biology, don't allow it. Water, in its solid form, does not float in the air. Rose plants won't grow on the planet Mercury (or on a diet of only the element Mercury). But there must be other reasons for nonexistence, for entities like the possibilities mentioned in the previous paragraph. Either God wanted only some types of butterflies, or chance determined who got born, or God uses what we call chance to determine that certain things will exist, and some not.

Mann closes by challenging the multiple universe idea. He points out that, if all possible universes exist, that would seem to make it possible for a universe with a fallen earth, but no redemption, to exist, which seems totally incompatible with God's love, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Interesting ideas.

Thanks for reading.