You have two theories here, one, God, is supported by evidence, one, multiple universe theory, is not only not supported by any evidence, but the evidnence that there is shows that the probability of it being true is 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents) against it being true. I understnad that means that to hold the number of zeroes you need for that number, you need to mark every subatomic particle in the univese with a zero, and then you need billions more universes to also mark their particles with enough zeroes. Conclusion for that, if you want to believe in no God, the odds are, um, just slightly against you. To believe such a thing is neither reasonable nor scientific.
To believe in multiple universes, for which there isn't the slightest evidence (none, zilch, zero, nada), you also must beleive in string theory. To beleive string thery, you must beleive in the following:
1 There is such a thing as an inflation field.
2 A potentially infinite number of bubble universes exists.
3 Strings exist.
4 Six additional hidden spatial dimentions (7 in m-theory).
5 An infinite number of compactivations of these six additional spacial dimentions exist and EACH corresponds (via inflation) to a potential infinity of ACTUAL universes.
6 That the string landscape, when combined with inflation, explains away the problem of our universes finely tuned initial conditions, laws, and constants.
Once again, you must eccept all these things in blind faith, as there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them.
On the other hand, there is the God idea. It, at least has some evidence for it. One evidence is that the bible, written many thousands of years ago, shows the big bang, planatery formation in the correct order, and the formation of life in the correct order (as seen by the fossil record) .
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
BTW, I think I saw you on another post, the "dry land" problem is simple, at the start, the planet was HOT. It didn't really have "land" as we know it, more like one big magma lake. The ocean was all up in the air since touching the surface would vaporise it, and there was a lot of volcanic ash and the like, and probably many gasses not present in our atmosphere today. Result, it was dark, hence the "let there be light" specified to take place here at sea level when it got slightly less dark, and then the next day/age it states that the waters above seperate from the waters below, written of in two places Gen 1:6 and Job 38:8 Job 38:9 (note that in Job, the sea, thick darkness, and an all covering cloud cover are all associated together), only after that does dry land appear AFTER the magma becomes land, the water can then and only then fall on it without vaporising, and then the crust starts cooling more and starts to wrinkle and the land starts to rise up out of the water. You cannot call the magma "dry land" when writting a bible to PEOPLE, who do not associate liquid rock with "dry land". Once you understand that this is written to people who live heare and now, and is written in language that people can relate to, it becomes clearer. For instance, when it says that after plants, there came fish and birds, it does not mention that at first they started out as trilobites and dinosaurs, because people aren't familiar with them, in fact, most people throughout history have never heard of them.
Note also what it says about the first life Gen 1:11 , note that it says "let the earth", it does not say "and God made plants appear out of nothing" or any other such thing. it firther goes on to list them in the same order as our fossil record. The only exception is mankind, where a very specific "fashioned" word is used, the creation of the first man and women is specified to be different from all the rest. This makes sense, if sentient creaturesd are given souls, if they evolved that way gradually, what would you do with the half sentient creatures? Thus God "cheates" and uses a miricle (breaking of natural law) to get past that problem.
You can also read about scientific principles as related to the bible here
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html . In fact, the scientific method, invented by a Christian monk (hard to get more Christian than that) is basically seen here Rom 1:20 Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. This clearly (to quote it) states that the natural world shows that there is a God, and even gives clues as to that Gods nature. This makes Christianity the only religion that allows itself, in the scientific way, to be falsified. So far, attempts to show that there is no God scientifically all depend on going AGAINST the evidence, even to the point of substituting multiple imaginary univeres and imaginary string theory, both completly unproven, for the idea of God, and even doing so despite the *H*U*G*E* evidence we DO have that shows that this universe wiotout a God cannot possibly exist.
In fact, what we really have here is science verus religion. The idea, "God', is the science, the idea, string theory and multiple universes, being unsupported by ANY evidence, and ONLY by blind faith despite the huge evidence against it, is the religion. The idea of infinite imaginary universes is basically the old "elephants all the way down" tale, seen here" In an oft-told variation of the Hindu myth of cosmology, a young boy asks his father what holds up the Earth. Amused, the father assures his son that the world rests on the back of a very large turtle. “But what holds up the turtle?” the boy asks. After brief reflection, the father says, “A huge elephant.” “But,” the boy continues, “what is under the elephant?” Sensing that he is rapidly losing control of the conversation, the father finally exclaims, “Son, it's elephants all the way down from there!”
So basically, you have the idea "God", supported by science (which leans so heavily in the God direction that it is basically saying that science proves God), versus ideas supported by "scientists" who are most definatly NOT using the scientifi method, but instead making up a religion. But wait, there's more! There is also actual POSITIVE evidence for this Christianity stuff. There is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin a quote from the research project "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved." Then the history channel made a computer model to see what this man looked like, you can see the result here
http://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com ... face01.jpg . He looks Jewish, that caracteristic Jewish nose. And then there is the dead sea scrolls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls some mentioning Jesus
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm .
Conclusion, you can accept the idea "No God", but you will have to go agaisnt science to do so, or you can accept the idea "God", with much supporting evidence both scientific (which God also specifically mentions supports him) and archeological. If you want to support the idea "God" without supporting Christianity, well, you will have to go with a religion that does not specifically say that science supports it, with a creation myth that does not track with what we now know happened, without ancient writings or archeology that supports it (any other religion with a shroud, I think not!), and often with parts of the religion clearly at odds with physical reality (like supporting multiple wives in a world with half men and half women).
I could never do it!
That was great!