To me, it seems like another way of trying to answer the question with more questions, but no way of discovering the answers.
If you answer one set of questions, you get another set of questions. So what? Should we just make up an answer and stop asking? I don't find that very
intellectually satisfying.
You're right that there's no evidence for a multiverse yet, so it's just one of many conjectures. If the point you're making is that the notion of God is just as unsupported as the notion of a multiverse, yeah, I'd accept that. They're both "Not even false." Occam's Razor them both.
I was simply asking how is a multiverse theory falsifiable?
I'm not contending that the idea of God has the same evidence as a theory of a multiverse, but rather what makes the multiverse falsifiable?
If neither are falsifiable then I'd say they're on equal footing, and it would seem odd to me that scientists feel comfortable using one as an explanation but mock the other.
> Should we just make up an answer and stop asking? I don't find that very intellectually satisfying.
Are you asking to find answers or to continually keep asking?
Personally, I'd rather have a complete and holistic answer, which for me seems the most satisfying.
But either way, I hope our personal intellectual satisfaction isn't driving the answers we agree upon.
If you answer one set of questions, you get another set of questions. So what? Should we just make up an answer and stop asking? I don't find that very intellectually satisfying.
You're right that there's no evidence for a multiverse yet, so it's just one of many conjectures. If the point you're making is that the notion of God is just as unsupported as the notion of a multiverse, yeah, I'd accept that. They're both "Not even false." Occam's Razor them both.