@lrva: I am in the process of forming a systematic belief for myself, I guess.

@Vasu: You're welcomed. lol

However, the model I proposed has lots of holes in it. It was a one-hour work and definitely is not what I believe in. I only put it forward because I chose to position myself as the antagonist in this debate. lol

But does religion support multi-verses?

Very easily o.o

Well, ok. You say that but you haven't given me any proof of it.

The reason why I ask that question is because accepting multi-verses seems like it would include accepting a slew of other things related to physics, ie. Big Bang.

I mean, I clearly have no idea what the physics behind multi-verses are. But ultimately, physics is physics. Or even science is science. And it is known that religion is at odds with science on several fronts, depending on your particular branch of religion.

Multi-verses fall into the domain of Quantum Physics.


As one Quantum Physicist said "Anyone who tells you they know anything about Quantum Physics doesn't know anything."

Okay, I've rephrased my argument. If multiverses exist, then there will be universes in which Jesus wasn't born to die for our sins, where Moses did not receive any ten commandments, where there is absolute mayhem, and in other words, things that god doesn't want. And besides, god being omnipotent, should also be able to change A to A1 without having a separate universe.

^ only if there was a 50/50 chance of those happening or not.

50/50 chance of what happening or not?

I've never considered/heard of the multiverse theory being applied to a deity-debate. Interesting.



Very true, except probably for the last part. Things God doesn't approve of happen all the time in this universe so I suppose you could say it has no bearing on other universes as well.



I don't see how this has any bearing on anything. A multiverse is supposedly created every single time a being is presented with a choice, making for untold layers of multiverses all superimposed over one another. There'd be no point in imposing a change on only one facet because the choice that didn't happen would be enacted anyway.

I've always been rather reluctant to hold to the idea of a multiverse for every possible outcome because of the ethical implications involved. If I save someone's life, then that would mean I'm also condemning someone else to death in another multiverse.

That's not an argument for or against the idea, I just find it a very troubling implication.