Did Animals Die Before the Fall?

St. Paul tells us:

“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).

Does this mean that there was no death–of any kind–before the Fall of Man?

Would that mean that no animals, plants, or microbes died?

What about animals that are carnivores?

Were lions vegetarians? How about alligators? Or sharks?

Let’s take a look at the subject . . .

 

A Key Concept

To set the stage, I need to introduce a key concept: entropy.

Entropy is a very important concept in the sciences. Put simply, entropy is the tendency of things to run down or break down over time.

Systems that are subject to entropy tend to dissipate energy and lose organization over time.

Entropy is the reason why the stars shine, and it’s the reason that you get hungry.

As stars burn their fuel, the heat and light they produce spreads out into the universe. It dissipates.

If stars weren’t subject to entropy then all the energy they generate wouldn’t dissipate. It would stay bundled up in the star.

As your body burns fuel (food), you dissipate energy, too–partly in the form of body heat. That’s why you need to eat, to replenish your body’s fuel.

If you weren’t subject to entropy, your energy would never flag, and you wouldn’t need to eat.

Now here’s the thing . . .

 

The Whole Material Universe Is Entropic

The entire physical universe, so far as we can tell, is entropic, or subject to entropy.

All material systems run down or break down over time.

A seeming, partial exception is life. Living things, in some respects, seem to gather energy and create organization.

Thus some have tried to define life in terms of a kind of weird anti-entropy.

But the exception is, at best, partial, because all living things die. Ultimately, entropy overcomes every living organism.

So what about death before the Fall?

And what about our prospects for immortality after the General Resurrection?

 

St. Thomas Aquinas on Material Things

Although the term “entropy” hadn’t been coined in his day, St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that it was the tendency of all material things to break down over time.

In his day, they referred to this as the tendency of material things to “corrupt” and to the idea that material things are “corruptible.”

It’s the same basic insight people have today; they just used different language to express it.

Given that man has a material body, how does Aquinas explain the idea that death entered the world through sin?

 

Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death!

Aquinas’s basic answer is that, because man’s body is material, it would have a natural tendency to run down and break down–to “corrupt”–over time.

Thus, in that sense, death is natural to man.

The human body will eventually die . . . unless something stops that from happening.

Nature can be supported and elevated by grace, though, and so it is within the power of God’s omnipotence to prevent death.

And God chose to do this. He gave man the grace needed to avoid dying, but we lost this grace through the Fall.

Aquinas writes:

Now God, who is the author of man, is all-powerful, wherefore when He first made man, He conferred on him the favor of being exempt from the necessity resulting from such a matter: which favor, however, was withdrawn through the sin of our first parents.

Accordingly death is both natural on account of a condition attaching to matter, and penal on account of the loss of the divine favor preserving man from death [Summa Theologiae, II-II:164:1 ad 1; cf. I:97:1].

This also explains how we will be immortal after the General Resurrection: After the General Resurrection, God will restore to us the grace needed to prevent our bodies from breaking down over time.

Indeed, he will do far more than that.

So much for man.

 

What About the Animals?

Hypothetically, God could have done the same thing for the animals (and all other life forms) that he did for us: He could have made them initially immune to death and then removed this grace when man fell.

But did he?

Aquinas doesn’t think so.

He writes:

In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals.

But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon.

Nor does Bede’s gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some.

Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals [Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2].

Aquinas thus holds that it was not all death that entered the world through man’s sin, but human death.

In his view, animals could and did kill and eat each other before the Fall.

Can we do anything to test this view?

 

Good Morning, Starshine

You have to be careful looking to Genesis with an eye toward mining scientific ideas out of it.

The purpose of the creation accounts in Genesis is to present the work of the Creator in a religious and theological way rather than in a scientific way.

Thus John Paul II warned:

Above all, this [creation] text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn’t contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm or positive contributions of substantial interest [General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986].

But it is worth noting that, even on a highly literalist reading, Genesis does envision the pre-Fall universe in a way that suggest the existence of death for non-humans.

First, there is the fact that the sun and the stars are shining before the Fall.

Second, there is the fact that God gives Adam and Eve permission to eat the various fruits found in the Garden of Eden (except for one). Thus, Adam and Eve needed food.

Both of these facts indicate that the pre-Fall universe was subject to entropy.

Living things in the pre-Fall universe would have had the same tendency to run down, break down, and die–unless supported by God’s grace, as in the case of man.

 

Death Visits the Plant Kingdom

We can go even further, though, because of God’s permission to eat fruit.

That means death. Specifically, the death of the fruit’s flesh (and its seeds, if those get chewed up, too).

The fruit’s flesh (and its seeds) are alive. They’re made of living cells.

The seeds are even little fruit embryos, which makes them independent organisms.

Of course, they aren’t human.

They aren’t rational beings, so they don’t have rights or a right to life, and it’s okay to eat them.

But they do die when we eat and digest them.

The same thing is true of other plant matter we eat.

 

Dinosaur Death Before the Fall?

The subjection of the pre-Fall universe to entropy and the existence of plant death before the Fall have significant implications for the question of animal death.

We know from these that, because of entropy, every living organism (including animals) would die unless supported by grace.

We also do not have any indication that life forms other than man had access to the grace needed for immortality (the tree of life). Nothing is said about them eating from it.

And we know, because of the permission to eat plants, that some living things did die, either on the level of cells (as in the case of a fruit’s flesh) or on the case of an organism (in the case of a seed).

Absent any particular reason to group animals with humans rather than plants, one would naturally expect animals to have died prior to the Fall as well.

That includes dinosaurs.

This conclusion seems reinforced by the fact that some of them are carnivores.

And it seems abundantly reinforced by the fossil record.

Given what we now know, it looks like Aquinas was right: It was human death, not all death, that is the result of the Fall of Man.

 

Back to St. Paul

This seems to be what St. Paul had in mind in the passage we began with.

Note that he spoke in terms of human death and resurrection–of death and resurrection coming to those who are “in Adam” and “in Christ” (“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”).

The Christian faith does not envision animals fitting those descriptions.

St. Paul himself thus seems to be speaking of human death entering the world.

The same is true of the parallel passage in Romans 5:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned [Rom. 5:12].

What Is the “God Particle”? And Why Is It Important?

What is the "God particle"?
Computer simulation of a Higgs boson event
Scientists are abuzz with word that the long-sought “God particle” (aka the Higgs boson) may have finally been discovered.

While most scientists don’t like the nickname “God particle” (and while many religious people might not neither), it’s certainly generated a lot of coverage in the media.

Because of the God-based nickname the particle has been given, the discovery of the Higgs has attracted a lot of press attention, and I’ve received quite a number of requests to comment on it.

What is the Higgs boson? Why is it important?
And why do they call it the “God particle”?

In this video, I take a look at these and similar questions to give you the basics of the new discovery and what to make of it from a religious perspective.

Before we get to the video, though, here’s a Higgs-related joke (adapted from one I read on the Internet):

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest, offended by its nickname of the “God particle,” immediately orders it out.

The Higgs shrugs and turns to leave. “Okay,” it says. “But without me, you can’t have Mass.”

Groan!

At least if you know the basics of what the Higgs boson is supposed to do.

If not, watch the video and find out!

If you’re reading this by email, click here to view the video.

By the way, several of the requests I got for comment came from members of the Secret Information Club. If you’d like to get cool, informative material on a variety of topics from me by email, you should sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or just use this handy sign up form:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

You can also listen to or download an audio, podcast version of this video. Just click the “play” icon to listen!

Science: People Who Believe in Heaven More Likely to Commit Crime?

That seems to be the implication of this story by CBS News, which is headlined:

Study Finds People Who Believe In Heaven Commit More Crimes

I guess we should all stop believing in heaven in order to have a more orderly society.

Okay. Let’s phone the Pope and give him the bad news, tell him he can start closing churches and winding down that whole new evangelization thing.

It seems the whole 2,000 year experiment has produced undesirable results, and it’s time to close up shop.

Or . . . wait.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s another possibility.

KEEP READING.

A Better Way To Board A Plane

Cartoon-airplane Later today I'm scheduled to get on a plane to fly to Reno, where I'm going to be giving a talk tomorrow morning on the Church Fathers.

I expect that they'll do the standard thing and have us board by "zone numbers" out of a desire to cut down on the time it takes to board so that we get on the plane in an efficient manner.

But it turns out that the "zone number" system is really poorly thought out.

In fact, new evidence suggests that it's worse than letting people board RANDOMLY.

Why?

Because everyone in a certain zone gets on at the same time and they get in each others' way trying to find their seats, stow their carry-on things, get seated, and buckle up. They're all seated next to each other. Of course they're going to get in each others way!

Randomness is better than that.

But it seems there's a better way still–designed by a Fermilab astrophysicist who, I'm guessing, is as frustrated with commercial air travel as the rest of us.

HERE'S HOW HIS SYSTEM WORKS.

It helps keep people out of each others' way and cuts boarding times in half.

Maybe the airlines will implement it and we'll get some relief.

Probably not by later today, though. 🙁

HERE'S VIDEO!


 

 

 

 

 

 

Dino Deaths & Original Sin

Tyrannosaurus-rex-skeleton-cg A reader writes:

I've got my brain in a crunch.  If death, disease, pain and suffering entered the world because of the first sin, then how would one best reconcile the deaths of all the Dinosaurs and other preceding animal throughout time up until the point that God first breathed life into Man and then Mankind committed the first sin?  I've been comfortable pointing to the first sin as the reason for all the death and pain in the world, but I stumped myself with this question.

The standard way of reconciling this would be to say that human death entered the world when our first parents committed original sin. 

In other words, God gave man access to the tree of life that would have enabled him to live forever. He didn't give access to it (so far as we know) to dinosaurs or, in fact, any other creatures besides mankind.

Thus when the fall occurs in Genesis 3, God drives Adam and Eve from the garden so that they won't have access to the tree of life and live forever. That suggests–though it does not prove–that the tree of life represented a special offer of immortality to mankind as long as they refrained from sin.

Why? Because it apparently didn't grow anywhere except in the garden. Otherwise, Adam and Eve could have simply eaten from a tree of life growing down the road somewhere, and there would be no point in expelling them.

This suggests that the tree of life was a unique offer to man as long as he remained in spiritual harmony with God, and when he sinned, the offer was lost.

Other species, presumably, never had the offer in the first place.

One note: The Church today would likely interpret the tree of life in a symbolic rather than literal fashion as that is what it does with the other tree–the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. According to the Catechism, 

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. the prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

One is still free to interpret the two trees literally, but the common teaching of the Church, as expressed in the Catechism, would seem to take them symbolically, the one representing the opportunity for immortality in union with God and the other representing the moral limits that man must respect or fall out of harmony with God.

This moral probation was presumably unique to man, who is uniquely a moral agent in the terrestrial sphere.

Thus:

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

Pope Challenges Big Bang Theory!

BigbangYes! It’s true!

If you believe all the nonsense there is on the Internet.

Take for example, this story from NBC’s station WTHR and its “Eyewitness News” team:

Pope Challenges Big Bang theory

Vatican City – Pope Benedict is offering his thoughts on how the universe was created.  Thursday, the Pope said God’s mind was behind the complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea the universe was created by chance.

The Pope has rarely talked about specific scientific concepts such as the Big Bang, which scientists say caused the formation of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

The Pope added scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans leave many questions unanswered.

And that’s all there is to this story, which was picked up and echoed in other locations in the mainstream media’s vast news echo chamber.

The dateline of the story, you will note, says “Vatican City,” and given journalistic praxis for datelines, that implies that the story was written by somebody in Rome, allowing this to fall under the “Eyewitness News” heading.

But not all eyewitnesses have eyes to see or wits to think—or ears to hear for that matter. And not all editors compose (or approve) headlines that accurately reflect the story.

I held back on commenting on this until the English translation of the homily was available, but even looking over the Italian original I was scratching my head, saying, “This doesn’t seem to say what the press accounts are saying it says.”

This story does have a nucleus of truth to it. Pope Benedict did give a homily for the feast of the Epiphany (when the Magi showed up, following the star) in which he reflected on the fact that God created the universe, but that’s got to be the ultimate dog-bites-man story, right? The pope describes God as the Creator? It’s not exactly like this story is without precedent.

But guess how many times Pope Benedict mentions the Big Bang in his homily?

That’s right! NONE!

And while it’s true that “The Pope has rarely talked about specific scientific concepts such as the Big Bang,” if by “rarely” you mean “not every single day,” you’d be right—though specific scientific concepts do come up rather often in papal statements (every time the Pope addresses the Pontifical Academy of Sciences . . . or the Pontifical Academy of Life . . . or the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences . . . or, you get the picture. But the ironic thing is that on this occasion the Pope did not address any specific scientific concepts. Not the Big Bang (or anything else except for a mention of novas, which I’ll get to in a minute).

What he did was say was . . .

The universe is not the result of chance, as some would like to make us believe. In contemplating it, we are asked to interpret in it something profound; the wisdom of the Creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God, his infinite love for us.

We must not let our minds be limited by theories that always go only so far and that — at a close look — are far from competing with faith but do not succeed in explaining the ultimate meaning of reality. We cannot but perceive in the beauty of the world, its mystery, its greatness and its rationality, the eternal rationality; nor can we dispense with its guidance to the one God, Creator of Heaven and of earth.

This is hardly the Pope “challenging” the Big Bang. Not only does he not mention it, he acknowledges that scientific theories “always go only so far” and that some “are far from competing with the faith.” If anything, that would be an endorsement of the idea that the Big Bang is compatible with the Christian faith—a papal claim that is hardly without precedent.

While the Pope is certainly aware of the Big Bang, and while it forms part of the background to his remarks, his point is a more general one about the world arising from chance. This claim is not restricted to advocates of Big Bang cosmology. There have been people claiming the world is the result of randomness since ancient times and many advocates of non-Big Bang cosmologies have held the same. For that matter, apart from the question of how the cosmos first came into being, many advocates of biological evolution maintain that the world came to have its present form purely through chance. These theories also form part of the background to what the Pope said. It’s not just about the Big Bang, it’s about the world in general.

So . . . thanks to the media for covering this. It’s always good to get the message out about God being the Creator and him loving us and so forth. But could the message be communicated a little more clearly next time? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

Oh, and speaking of communicating the message clearly, a couple of thoughts for the folks responsible for getting the Pope’s homilies up on the Vatican web site (translators, web guys, whoever):

1) What’s the major international language these days? Hint: It’s not Italian.

It’s also not French, or Spanish, or even Chinese. It’s English. English has 450 million native and secondary speakers. It is an official or the majority language in fifty-seven countries (nearly twice that of its closest competitor, French, which has this distinction in 31 countries).

If you want to get the Pope’s message out to the world and avoid (or at least mitigate) him being misunderstood due to difficulty checking what he actually said, devote the resources needed to get his speeches on the web site in English in a timely manner! Don’t make us wait over a week, as in this case, by which time the media story has grown cold and sewn whatever misunderstandings it contained. Also . . .

2) Make sure that your translation into English is correct.

Because it isn’t always.

There have been any number of cases when people point to a sloppy translation that has been posted on the Vatican web site and come away with a misimpression. This is particularly bad because people will say—and often have said—“Hey, this is what it says on the Vatican’s own web site!” It’s understandable that they’d think that what they find on the Vatican’s web site is accurately translated, and they have every right to think that, because it should be.

But too often it’s not, and it creates a mess for those of us who are trying to help get the Vatican’s actual message out, in spite of mistranslations appearing on its web site.

So lest anybody be too sure that just because something appears on Vatican.va, it must be an accurate translation, consider this passage from the English version of Pope Benedict’s Epiphany homily:

And so we come to the star. What kind of star was the star the Magi saw and followed? This question has been the subject of discussion among astronomers down the centuries. Kepler, for example, claimed that it was “new” or “super-new”, one of those stars that usually radiates a weak light but can suddenly and violently explode, producing an exceptionally bright blaze.

These are of course interesting things but do not guide us to what is essential for understanding that star.

Here the Pope asks a question we’ve all wondered about: What was the Star of Bethlehem? He notes as an “example” (presumably one among several) an idea Kepler had and says it is “interesting” (which means he finds it interesting, not that he’s endorsing it as the truth), and all that’s fine.

What is not fine is the way whoever translated this rendered the Pope’s description of Kepler’s idea.

“NEW”????

“SUPER-NEW”???

You don’t have to have a doctorate in astronomy (or Italian) to recognize this for what it is: a mistranslation of nova and supernova.

I mean, just look at the Italian:

Keplero, ad esempio, riteneva che si trattasse di una “nova” o una “supernova” . . .

It’s got the words “nova” and “supernova” right there! And notice it doesn’t have a bare presentation of these words without the indefinite article (un, una = “a, an”). It’s got the indefinite article right in front of both nouns! That tells you these are nouns, not adjectives. “A nova,” not “new”; “a supernova,” not “super-new.”

The translation is so bad that one wonders if the Italian was plopped into a machine translation program or something. If so, it wasn’t Google’s, because that churns out:

Kepler, for example, believed that it was a “nova” or a “supernova” . . .

TRY IT FOR YOURSELF!

So, Google’s machine translation wins hands down on this one.

While even Homer nods, it is hard to imagine how such an obviously erroneous translation could be made by someone with a functional grasp of Italian and English, much less how it could survive any kind of review.

So, it’s not just the mainstream media that needs to shape up in how it presents the Pope’s message.

The Vatican’s translation service needs to, too.

Or that’s my opinion.

What do you think?

Eco-Fundamentalists? Hate, Actually.

Let me say up front that I have nothing against treating the environment in a responsible manner. It’s implied by the commission God gave mankind in Genesis 1. I also try to avoid fights about words, so whether one would call a responsible environmental position “conservationion” or “environmentalism” is a thing that does not need to be fought about.

But there is a very prominent strand in the environmental movement that takes matters to extreme and anti-human limits. In a previous post, I have referred to this position as environmental fundamentalism, to distinguish it from healthy concern for the environment.

I mean, nobody wants to make Iron Eyes Cody‘s iron eyes cry. Do they?

However that may be, the deeply misanthropic views and “convert-or-die” rhetoric of environmental fundamentalism was very clearly on display this week, with the release of a shock video produced by 10:10, an international initiative to get people to cut their “carbon emissions” by 10%.

Here’s the video . . . WARNING: EXTREMELY GROSS AND OFFENSIVE!

Oh, and that is Gillian Anderson of X-Files fame at the end, now sporting long blond tresses.

According to the 10:10 initiative, the script for this video was written by “Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis,” who is the director of the 2003 romantic comedy, “Love Actually.” What the video displays, however, is hate, actually. Hatred of those who disagree with you such that you find it funny to ironically lie to them (“No pressure”) and then depict their bloody and explosive deaths in graphic detail (shlurppp!) . . . even if they are children.

The Telegraph’s James Delingpole, “a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything” puts it well when he says:

With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.

Meanwhile, over at 10:10’s “media partner” The Guardian, we read the following from 10:10 founder Franny Armstrong:

“Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: “Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”

“We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,” she adds.

GAH!

Well, the blowback on this one was such that 10:10 swiftly pulled its own video and issued this completely inadequate and insincere half-apology:

Sorry.

Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team

The casual, breezy tone adopted by Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie, and the whole 10:10 team makes it clear that they just don’t “get it.” Note also how “many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but . . . some didn’t.”

Yeah. Nice defense of your own filmmaking in the first clause. Nice dissing of the people you’re apologizing to in the second. You’re so sincere.

And this is by no means that eco-fundamentalism has revealed its misanthropic face in the media.

Delingpole helpfully provides a link to this threatening videogram delivered by Greenpeace, in which a wee bairn stonefacedly appears to make patricidal and matricidal insinuations:

Charming lad, that.

So . . . nice to see the mask coming off.

What are your thoughts?

Stephen Hawking’s Cosmic Slot Machine (Part 2)

In their new book, The Grand Design, co-authors and physicists Stephen Hawking (pictured) and Leonard Mlodinow argue that God is not necessary to explain the existence of the universe as we experience it.

Why not?

After all, if you look at the universe it looks suspiciously like it has been deliberately designed with us in mind. This is something that Harking and Mlodinow go into in some depth. They point out, as have many theistic apologists, that the laws governing our universe seem finely tuned to allow the existence of life. There are any number of constants—the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, etc.—that are set at just the value needed to allow life to exist. If any of these constants were off by even a small amount, life would not be possible. It therefore appears that our universe has been intelligently designed to allow for life, which implies the existence of an intelligent designer.

In apologetics, this argument is sometimes called the argument from design from cosmological constants.

In their book, the two authors try to provide an alternative account of the universe’s origin that does not require an intelligent designer.

In the account they sketch they claim that ours is not the only universe. In fact, ours is only one of a vast number of universes, all of which pop into existence out of nothing as spontaneous creations. What’s more, the laws of physics take on every possible permutation in these universes, so there are vast numbers of them out there where the cosmological constants are different. So there isn’t a single uni-verse but a multi-verse in which every possible flavor of individual universes occur.


KEEP READING