@Mros as many as with first mover

I'm not so advanced

@Firefly So when you say, it is only based on abstraction; as far as abstractions go, it is still logical. You are correct about saying the abstractions follow reality, not the other way around. It is not an Absolute statement. It is based on the abstraction of motion.

I don't know proofs of it

Is there any logical explanation for the existence of the multiverse or is it just pure speculation?

@Deleted User correct. But most abstractions that people had in history went wrong.

So we really don't have a prove.

But we have a lot of fanatics

Believing in abstractions.

hypotheses, I found a video explaining an alternative but I don't remember it, neither I find the video; I'd have so search it, Still, I don't think I could explain this since I'm not advanced

@Firefly Abstractions become wrong when they are shown to be illogical. This argument is 800 years old and has not been shown to be illogical based on reason or science.

Is there a proof of God?

Aquinas is still making a logical and reasonable explanation.

It is the closest thing to proof that exists.

Like the other ones, it could be a lot of things

Of course it isn't definitive proof, but it at least makes it a possibility.

@Deleted User That is not true. Abstractions are wrong when they are not reflecting reality.

@Mros Multiverse theory is just a postulation to try and explain the beginning of the universe. It is a secular theory for the first mover of this universe, even though it does not explain the ultimate first mover. It is special pleading.

Who proved what doesn't matter.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

@Firefly That is semantics. How do you prove that it does not reflect reality? You need to use logic.

I've heard of the multiverse theory but I've never heard any convincing arguments for it.

Nope

You have to do an experiment AND use logic.

Sure. You need data.

And if you don't have data you have only naked anstraction

It is not prove

I agree.

The reason that no definitive evidence proving or disproving God's existence is that by definition God is a being that exists outside of reality.

The arguments based on logic is simply the best we have.

@Mros No, abstractions alone can't be a valid prove to anything.

Such an abstraction cannot disprove it either.

Which is why it's such a conundrum.

@Mros You don't need to disprove something that is not proven.

It is a theory, an explanation, is it not? Therefore it would need to be either proven or disproven.

@Mros Need?

No need.

So then you're just ignoring the possibility.

@Mros I ignore billions of possibilities.

I think abrahamic religions have internal philosophical contradictions; but that's out of speaking of god in general, which is a vague word

Everybody does