Chris comments:
I am not a supporter of the multiverse theory. It is kind of pseudoscience that cannot be observed but yet theoretical physicists need something to do to keep sane I guess. In terms of the multiverse and Christianity, I always thought CS Lewis touched upon it in his Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan pretty much said that in our universe he goes by a different name, which means he is probably another incarnation of Christ.
Also multiverse theories are aimed to destroy the fine tuned universe theory.
Another reader writes:
If Alan Guth is right then an infinite number of echoic analogues of Guth are busy in their basements creating an infinite number of universes. All it takes to be an ersatz deistic-creator god is an MIT professorship and a basement. Am I the only one who thinks the accounts of creation in Genesis, which certainly need not be taken literally, make more sense.
And another:
LOL. In some alternate universe Alan Guth is not the most famous theoretical physicist in the universe. And in some alternate universe Alan Guth is wrong. That paradoxically makes him wrong in every universe.
The multiverse hypotheses – theories if you wish – by definition are beyond our space and time. Thus they cannot be observed or detected. As such, they are beyond the reach of science to prove or disprove. Even so, in theoretical science, hypotheses to explain other observation are permissible. But what observation is that, here? It is that the universe seems to be fine tuned for our form of life. That is too improbable without some explanation. You’ve got two choices; a creator or billions upon billions of universes. To my way of thinking, to propose billions upon billions of universes just to explain our own is beyond the realm of rational. It violates Occam.
If you really want to hurt your brain read about the multiverse in Wikipedia. If you want a good account read “A Brief History of the Multiverse” by Paul Davies in the New York Times (April 12, 2003).
And they said shroud research is nutty!!!
And one reader wrote:
I told you Elvis was alive. I know because I got an email about it.
Y’know sometimes Occam needs to be violated. E.g., the reason that radical Darwinists propose random mutation and natural selection is it seems to them more concept-economical than say love or God being behind it all. So Occam may be good for creating hypotheses, or picking which experiment to run, but if it’s broke, it’s broke and ya maybe gotta add a litlle more complexity.