The multiverse seems to be gaining traction of the scientific community, even becoming the prevalent worldview. It seems some types of the multiverse theory, such as the many-worlds interpretation, seem to go against basic theological principles. But are these really a problem?

For example, if every possible universe existed, God would have no control, and presumably universes with infinite evil and suffering would exist, and everything in between. I guess one could argue that the many-world interpretation requires the universe to be logically valid, but going against God would not logically be possible (?).

Some other quick arguments such as this universe is not truly God's only plan, we are not unique, we have no moral choices because everything happens, other God-like (who could contest God on his decisions) entities existing in some parallel universes, etc. could be made.

Is this, and presumably many others, argument valid?

  • 1
    – E...
    Commented May 22, 2017 at 15:49
  • 10
    I am afraid you are exaggerating. First, multiverse is a minority position, and even some defenders of string theory reject multiverse. But even were it true it would pose no new problems for theology. First, physical mutiverse does not instantiate "every possible world", its "worlds" are still bound by universal laws (including moral ones, if one wishes). Second, many-worlds interpretation has a many-minds version, which does not even posit multiple worlds. And third, God is big enough to have a megaplan with multiple subplans implementing diversity of creation.
    – Conifold
    Commented May 22, 2017 at 21:32
  • 1
    I would point out an issue of logic in your question. Christian theology (I guess that's what you are referring to) was developed at a time where there was no concept of multiverse, so it didn't say anything about it. You would have to rephrase your question as "supposing the multiverse theory created a consensus in the scientific community, and supposing Christians theologians felt compelled to accept it, how would they have to reinterpret their theological canon?" Discussions around the first two hypotheses would be so debatable that any discussion about the actual question would be moot.
    – fralau
    Commented May 23, 2017 at 20:50
  • Note that this question could be a subset of this (unanswered) one: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/40917/…
    – fralau
    Commented May 23, 2017 at 21:01
  • 2
    Depends upon who's theology you are asking about. The vedic concepts of the universe has room for multiverses. You are struggling with resolving monotheistic concepts of the Godhead with science and finding the same conflicts that Aquinas had. Monism has no arguments with multiverses. Commented May 25, 2017 at 7:55

3 Answers 3


The existence of a multiverse may be more problematic for science than for theology. Wikipedia describes Paul Steinhardt's objection as follows:

Steinhardt argued that the multiverse destroyed any predictive power of inflation because it produces an infinite variety of patches of space spanning every conceivable cosmological outcome, including an infinite number of patches that are not flat, not uniform, and nearly without scale-invariant perturbations. His opinion was unexpected and largely unwelcome in the scientific community, because Steinhardt had played an important role in developing both inflation and eternal inflation, which are the two important theoretical concepts which lead to the multiverse. His argument that the multiverse was a sign of the failure of the inflationary model was largely based in his belief in the long-standing scientific method, often referred to as falsifiability. He argued that because inflation produces a multiverse, where anything and everything is possible any number of times, the theory itself is so flexible that no observation or combination of observations can ever disprove it.

The hypothesis of a multiverse would allow chance rather than a divine agent's choice to create all of these universes. This view of a multiverse would be a master narrative that would challenge at least some theistic master narratives as the OP suggests.

However, if all of the universes were more or less alike in the multiverse that would be evidence that it was not chance after all, but a divine agent who was responsible for all of them. The anthropic principle used to explain why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life would then not be useful.

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 26). Paul Steinhardt. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:12, April 14, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Steinhardt&oldid=889637184

  • That is a conception of multiverse where entropy would be meaningless, because all possibilities would happen. Ie, it obviously doesn't make sense.
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Dec 3, 2020 at 19:04

I stumbled upon this question searching for a theory by another philosopher-theologist whose name I can't recall. If I recall correctly, one of the earlier proponents for (near) infinite multiverse was a theologist.

The idea builds upon the assumption that God gives us free will, but our lives are also predetermined by God.

So what happens is that every choice, every small decision puts us in a little other multiverse. There are some alternate universes where people do other things. God picks the path in which we do the best. Our consciousness resides in the one where we do the best. Maybe in some parallel universe, I'm a drug addict or a tyrant. Maybe I'm poor or rich and become a jerk because of it.

There might be a universe of suffering and evil, and that contrast is used to show someone's best form as a hero. Or someone else might thrive in a universe of pure good.

The idea is we are judged in the afterlife by the path where we have done our best.

  • Could you be thinking of Luis de Molina, whose philosophy ('Molinism') I discussed a bit in this answer? The idea wasn't an actually real multiverse, but that God's omniscience includes "middle knowledge" of what choices people would make in all possible external circumstances, and uses that to pick which one to make real. As I said in the other answer, some Molinists also argue for "transworld damnation" where anyone who goes to hell would have ended up there in all possible external circumstances.
    – Hypnosifl
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 0:58

I live in the United States were the prodement religion is Christianity.

In my experience, most Christians do not believe in evolution.

It could be argued that God created evolution which he used as a tool to create life.

Same applies for multiverse.

If God is all Knowing and Intelligent as often believed. Then it makes sense he could create a complex tool or any science beyond the convential understanding of people.

  • God could be the universe.

  • the universe could be a fractual.

  • God is in a higher miltiverse/dimension that we will never understand.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .