Regarding what you called it in your book — I saw it in your book God Plays Dice in the context of the anthropic principle in physics. Thank you very much, it helped me a lot!

“If not, then why couldn’t God be included in one of them after all (since everything is possible)?”
???
Even if there are demons and one of them is called God, what does that have to do with there being a being who created the world? It’s like calling Santa Claus God. So if there are multiple universes, the proof for the Creator of the world falls away and we’re left with strange creatures. It seems to me most atheists would accept that.

Creator of which world? The typical atheist recoils from mystical beings unfamiliar to us. He has nothing specifically against God. By the same token he rejects angels and demons and fairies and souls and the like.
The price he pays is accepting a theory in which there are beings of every type and species, including gods. That is, he accepted through the back door everything he didn’t want. So what did he gain?
The question is not what he is called but who he is. A transcendent and omnipotent being who created our universe and/or gave the Torah and/or morality could arise in all these wild worlds and universes. On the contrary, the claim that he does not exist has no basis at all, since every being you can or cannot imagine will arise in those countless universes.
No atheist will accept this except when he is backed into a corner because of his fixations, and then he has no choice but to claim the existence of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. And this is the rational-scientific alternative…

But why assume that the being that arose in the parallel universe is the creator of our universe?

That is not an assumption. From the revelation at Sinai in the Torah, a message is conveyed to us: “I am the Lord your God” and “In the beginning God created.” The atheist does not accept this because he claims there is no God. But in light of his crazy tea party, there is no longer any reason to doubt it.

As I read the dialogue that developed, a question comes to mind for the Rabbi—

1. The claim that God is a possible being in parallel universes basically shoots the argument from design in the foot… because it is an agnostic claim. Maybe that means that if I am an extreme atheist then I become an agnostic — but it also means that if I am a deist I become an agnostic…?

2. The basic premise of this claim is that the universes were created randomly — the atheist will tell you that there is no problem with the concept of God growing out of our imaginary and unknown conceptual world…
That is, the starting assumption of parallel universes is that the universes are the result of randomness… and God is a product within the universes, not the creator of the universes… so in a certain universe a mystical being called God could emerge… nu, well 😉 Why wouldn’t the radical atheist be willing to sacrifice his atheism in favor of pure agnosticism, which assumes that there could be a being called God in one of the universes…? After all, from such a worldview everyone ought to be agnostics…?

Thank you very much!

My own position is that there is no mechanism for creating universes. This is unfounded speculation. And even if there were such a mechanism, it itself would require an explanation (= God).
What I am arguing is that according to the atheist’s own (bizarre) view, that such a mechanism requires no explanation, and that it even explains the existence of our universe, why does he deny the possibility of God existing in one of his bizarre universes?

“And even if there were such a mechanism, it itself would require an explanation.”
Suppose there is a mechanism of parallel universes —
why would it require an explanation? Why doesn’t randomness work here?

Design makes sense if there is a one-time and extremely complex event like the creation of the universe. But if there are several “creations” of different complex universes — then this is already random physical determinism that we are part of…

Thank you very much!

Neria, this has never been clear to me either, I’m joining in!

The question is: what is the mechanism that creates universes? Is there such a mechanism? In order to talk about randomness, you need some distribution. If there were a random universe-generator with a given distribution of laws of nature, you could talk about the probability that this or that universe would be created. But then you would have to explain who created the random generator. You are only retreating one step backward.

He means that such a mechanism leaves us only with the cosmological proof and completely cancels the physico-theological one.

Why do you need to explain the generator in such a case? If, for example, it produces all the universes whose laws of nature have values identical to ours, only each one differs in its constants.

Shmuel,
I disagree. A mechanism that produces random universes is very complex and unique, and it requires a creator.

Magdol,
Because such a device that generates universes is something that did not create itself. And it makes no difference at all whether the universes it produces have random laws.
And we still haven’t talked about how speculative it is to assume the existence of those universes and that generator, when no one has ever seen them.