But there is sort of no evidence even possible to support that. It's mostly folks who are uncomfortable with the idea that God created anything. They used to believe in a steady state universe, but got shown that was not correct. Now they want to believe in a pulsating universe and/or a multiverse. The idea of a universe that had a beginning, which is where things are at now scientifically, smacks of too much God for them.
the multi-universe seems to be a catch-all for explaining everything science scratches its head at. Its attempts to be described as this sea of swelling bubbles to me has more questions than answers and is not sustainable, it only pushes God to greater boundaries but it certainly doesn't eliminate him.
When there is a foam of microbubbles there is a process that's called Ostwald ripening where smaller bubbles are absorbed into larger bubbles until everything pops and disappears. Go to a cafe, order a latte and let it sit, eventually, all that thick velvety milk foam will get larger and larger bubbles and eventually disappear. So is this the fate of our universe? will our universe be absorbed into larger ones, or since we are expanding does that mean we are absorbing other universes? Are we just the top of the transuniversal latte? It doesn't matter, bubbles are not sustainable and will eventually pop so that would be our fate. But what's outside the bubbles are just more questions. are all these bubbles inside another larger bubble that is in its own sea of swelling bubbles also, contained in an even larger bubble repeating forever?
Eventually, the buck needs to stop somewhere, and frankly, this culture of a forever cycle is just a "turtles all the way down" sentiment. Why is science so quick to dismiss God but yet proclaim processes that never have a beginning and simply always were? the difference between that and God seems to be not a great leap, at least philosophically. God is also eternal and without beginning but the difference is God is not his creation so he is not just a cog in a forever system, He is sentient and is separate from the system but also is the sole benefactor of the system.
Science doesn't seem to like this mic-drop argument where God is the final "buck" to which the question is asked who created God? The difference, at least philosophically, is that since God is not part of our system he is not under the laws of our system so goes by a set of different rules that may, in fact, conflict with the rules we are under. It doesn't explain why God can have no beginning but it does give a reason why the universe has a beginning and positions the universe inferior to God where rationally God is of a different substance and quality than that of the universe. So at the very least philosophically speaking God may exist in an eternal state in relation to our own universe because he doesn't exist parallel to it (like bubbles) he exists superior to it. This doesn't hold true with a continuous process of collapsing and expanding universes or a sea of swelling bubbles as outside influences are vehemently ejected (incase we are tempted to call that influence God) which is a logical problem.
In every conceivable boundary, even in the abstract, there implicitly is outside that boundary, this is innate simply by having a boundary. The moment you say something like the universe is a bubble or it's expanding/collapsing it draws a boundary that demands an outside to that boundary. Science seems to have cut out a circle from a piece of paper and focus on the circle but ignores the piece of paper with the circle-sized hole cut out.
