Parallel Universes are for suckers.

Yesterday I wrote about how I hate academics.  And when I hear about parallel universes I hate them even more.  According to Scientific American--which might as well change their name to Secular American--parallel universes are 'not just a staple of science fiction but a direct implication of cosmological observations.'  They're absolutely 'real.'  Haha. 

Richard Swinburne writes in Is There A God?:  'It is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all.  Surely the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing:  no universe, no God, nothing.  But there is something.  And so many things.  Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron.  But so many particles!  Not everything will have an explanation.  But the whole progress of science and all other intellectual enquiry demands that we postulate the smallest number of brute facts.  If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so--even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being.'  But some scientists can't accept that there was a Creator.  They need to insist that the universe is random. 

If the universe is random then there is no need for a Creator at all:  According to current theories, processes early in the big bang spread matter around with a degree of randomness, generating all possible arrangements with nonzero probability.  (Scientific American.)   However, once scientists began to study the universe they found that it was not so random at all, but that it is extremely ordered from atom to infinity.  Moreover, most universal laws seemed to have one property common to them all: they were all necessary for the ultimate creation of human life.  The so-called anthropic principle. 

But if this universe is ordered, ordered in such a way as to produce a single product, Man, then the universe wouldn't be random, there would be a Creator.  Science couldn't have that so they decided that maybe there are an infinite number of universes and an ordered universe would simply be one possible outcome.  Whereas an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters couldn't produce the order we see around us, maybe an infinite number of rooms holding an infinite number of monkeys might.  And if that didn't work, just keep adding rooms until it did!  Eventually, you'd have cities full of 100-storey apartment complexes filled with rooms and sooner or later we'll get one ordered universe by chance?  Right?  Right?  This would also allow that an infinite number of  universes would produce nothing and are empty and unordered; which would be the natural expected state!  So by creating an infinite number of universes everything can finally be explained!  This universe is not special but a random occurrence; there are plenty of universes that 'worked' and produced nothing!  

But returning to Swinburne, this is unscientific because it relies on creating an unnecessarily complex theory by having to add entire universes to explain this one!  Surely, a simpler--more scientific--theory is a single, ordered, created universe with us as the sole occupants?  (As an aside, if the universe is teeming with life as scientists say then where is it all?  Why haven't we found any yet?  Don't worry they have answers for that too!  In fact, there are over fifty simple solutions!  If it weren't so funny, I'd cry.) 

Which is easier to believe? 

a) That there is a being (beyond our comprehension granted) that created a finite universe and that there was a beginning and will be an end or
b) that there are an infinite number of infinitely large and unobservable--and since when did science accept theories that are unobservable?--universes with more being created every nanosecond, some no bigger than an atom? 

Some scientists are so anxious to eliminate the idea of a Creator that they'll come up with anything nowadays to explain one away. 

And don't even get me started on evolution!