What are the advantages of postulating multiple universes or infinite number of universes?
We already have the observable universe which according to astrophysicists started with the Big Bang.
This Big Bang theory has not apparently solved the question of whether it came from absolute nothing or it came from something that exists without (as opposed to within) time and space.
Logically absolute nothing cannot give rise to something, so the observable universe which started with the Big Bang must have come from something without (as opposed to within) the observable universe which according to the Big Bang theory had a beginning.
There are writers who expound on the idea that the observable universe the one where we are situated in could have come from absolute nothing.
They would start from nothing, absolute nothing, but sooner than later they would bring in something which already is against their original starting point of absolute nothing.
For example I just read earlier today the exposition of a writer who tried to show that the observable universe could and therefore did come from absolute nothing.
He said that we would start with absolute nothing, but immediately he described the absolute nothing as infinite nothing.
That is already illogical, because if you start from absolute nothing then you must stop there right away, and no longer are you allowed to even describe the nothing as infinite nothing, because once there is only absolute nothing, then all further discourse is no longer legitimate logically.
If you slip in anything at all to describe the absolute nothing, right away you are engaging in sleight of hand manipulations of words and concepts, and that is not science and not philosophy but trickery.
Now with the speculative multiverse or parallel universes they might seemingly give rise to our observable universe which started with the Big Bang.
But then that would be allowing something that is purely speculative to give rise to something that is not speculative but actaully real, the observable universe where we are situated in and which according to astrophysicists has a beginning.
If you start with a speculative something as the cause of something else, then both of them are speculative and neither one of them even the second one can become actual or can pass from the status of speculation to the status of realization.
However, even granting though not conceding that such universes exist, they will have to have begun from something without (as opposed to within) themselves, so they will face the same trouble as with our observable universe, which on empirical considerations and inferential thinking came about at the moment of the Big Bang.
The solution to all these problems seems to consist in postulating an infinite regression of universes, then there is no more trouble about what gave rise to what.
However, logically if we postulate an infinite regression of universes, and since infinite means no beginning, then these universes never began, so we will have even proven that our observable universe which started at the Big Bang never arrived, because the infinite regression of universes never had a beginning, infinite meaning without beginning, so they never got started to exist.
Now with theists the problem is a no brainer.
Theists postulate a necessary being who started everything with a beginning but Himself never has any beginning, because He is in his essence pure existence and thus the source of all existnence that has a beginning.
And that is why theists like myself define the concept of God as the necessary being creator of everything with a beginning.
Yrreg