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

There is no proof, so just let people worship how they wish, whatever brings them most happiness in reaching Tengri

Elaborate on them, @Blebleh

Well, it doesn't need to be proven. God exists for your to believe with faith, not to beleive just because it's proven.

Firefly is right. Let me unpack a little here to help understand the logical framework. The evidence shows that the universe expanded (moved) from a single point. Given our current understand of physics this causes a problem because you can only regress so far. Eventually motion stops. That is the current state of science. So why did the energy of the universe go from no motion, to motion? What kind of thing can do that? That's where Aquinas' argument comes in.