“The Closet Atheist” has received several comments about her recent post on fine-tuning. The basic idea is that the laws of our universe might have been quite different from the way they actually are. But if they had been even a tiny bit different, life as we know it could never have existed. So perhaps the cosmos was carefully designed as a home for living creatures, including humans. That implies a designer – a god.
This theory is actually controversial, and the Closet Atheist herself rejects it. But a fellow named Zane replied: “I’m not a physicist, … but I think there are better motivations for positing a multiverse than the fine-tuning problem …”
Zane points out that there are several different concepts of the multiverse. For example, if the universe is infinite, “everything possible is bound to happen,” so … “there are regions within that space that will never influence one another, making them functionally separate universes.”
In addition, a many-universes theory might help explain “some of the weirdness in quantum mechanics.” Some interpretations of quantum theory suggest that every single instant gives birth to a great many futures. “So at each point where multiple things could happen, everything possible thing happens, resulting in an infinite budding of minutely differing universes.”
Question: Why would the manifold futures that are perhaps implied by quantum theory result in futures with new sets of fundamental laws? Any comments?
Next time I’ll mention some ideas about the multiverse from my book, Bridging the God Gap.
Roger Christan Schriner
For my main web site, click http://www.schrinerbooksandblogs.com/
Theists & Atheists: Communication & Common Ground 
Theories of a multiverse open my mind to what we mean by the word God. I like to use the script G_d and let you fill in the blank with o or oo or other letters you may choose. This script ties to ancient use of the word and our multi-views of reality and possibilities.
Thanks for this idea. And I suggest in Bridging the God Gap that the Good is in a sense a higher law than God. If there is a supreme being, and that being does evil instead of good, we should call it the Devil, not God. So I contend that “Morality comes first. Everything and everyone must be judged by the standard of the highest values. Even God is thus accountable.”
I agree. That is the view I have learned in my Mormon faith. We have a verse that says God could cease to be God. It is not viewed as something that would happen, but as a moral contingency of Good. I like to amend Pascal’s wager on betting there is a God by hedging the bet on a God that is Good.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I think Pascal would have taken your suggestion seriously.