There are only two ways that can be proposed for the number of universes (in the hypothesis of the multiverse) to be infinite. One is for universes to have a beginning; the other is for every universe in the infinite multiverse to have no beginning, and so to have always existed.
The latter point contradicts the Big Bang theory, which says that our universe is about 13.7 billion years old. So our universe did not always exist. If the only universe we know, the only one which provides us with scientific evidence, has not always existed, then proposing an infinity of other universes, about which we have no evidence, and each of which has always existed, is baseless speculation.
Another problem with the claim that any universe or universes have always existed is that of dependency. The umpteenth floor of a tall building can have many floors beneath it, but it must have a ground floor. Otherwise, the upper floors cannot exist. Similarly, time must have a beginning and the universe must have a beginning, since each passing day of time and of existence for the universe follows after the previous one. No beginning (for something proposed to always exist) means no existence in the present day.
How is it, then, that we say God has always existed? God is infinite in a different way that the proposal of an infinite amount of matter and energy. Created things exist in time and place. God exists beyond time and beyond place, and so the problem of infinite regression does not apply. Since matter and energy require existence in time and place, they cannot have always existed, like God.
An infinite regression can never reach the present point in time, as an infinite number of seconds intervenes before the present. Moreover, an infinite regression has no starting point, like a tall building that supposedly has no ground floor. Such a proposal is impossible.
And by infinite regression, I do not mean that time moves backwards as well as forwards. Rather, I mean that we today would be considering the past, and would realize that a infinite number of days in the past means that our present would never have been reached. Can time move backwards as well as forwards? We have no evidence of time moving backwards, but even in that hypothetical, time in neither direction ever reaches infinity. In fact, time as we know it, moving forward forever, never reaches infinity. There are always a set number of days in the past, no matter how large the number. And an extremely large number is no closer to infinity than the number 3.
On the first point, there cannot be an infinite number of universes, each of which has a beginning point in time. Suppose, as a pure hypothetical, that one new universe is created every billion years, resulting in 14 total so far. As time continues forward, no matter how many billion years follow in the future, the number of universes never gets any closer to infinity. A trillion is no closer to infinity than a few. Similarly, if a vast number of universes were created every tiny fraction of a second for the past 13.7 billion years, that number of universes is no closer to infinity than is the number one.
Because matter and energy are defined by time and place, they can never be infinite in time or place. They are, by definition, limited to time and place. A particle is present in a particular place, at a particular time. Even if we accept the theory that some particles, like a fast moving electron, has only a probability of being in a particular place at a particular time, that is still a limit. And it is certain that the same electron was not across town; the uncertainty associated with the electron’s place and time is limited to the vicinity of the atom in question.
Therefore, there is no multiverse in the sense of an infinite number of universes. Then, too, our universe is not infinite. It cannot be infinite as matter and energy are inherently limited by time and place. For example, a light wave has a frequency and amplitude, requiring an extent and limit in place, and that light wave moves at a velocity, which requires an extent and limit in time. The same must be true of other types of energy, such as gravitational waves. They have a frequency and amplitude (measurable by LIGO), and they move at a certain velocity, so far only determined to be similar to the speed of light. Matter is extended in place, and can move, which requires it to be extended in time. Then matter is also limited by place and time, as each particle (or large object) has a location and might change location from time to time. No type of matter or energy is everywhere all at once. No type of matter or energy is beyond time and place.
This analysis also rules out the idea that a singularity is at the center of a black hole, or that the universe, just before the Big Bang, was a singularity (a dimensionless point containing a vast amount of matter/energy). By definition, matter and energy must have an extension in space and time. Also, black holes spin, while a dimensionless point cannot spin.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
Ron,
Although God created the universe somewhere between 13 or 14 billion years ago, is it possible that God modified the planet earth 6 – 7 thousand years ago? It seems possible to me that the Bible could be literal in a sense when it comes to the seven days of creation. The modifications of earth were so great leading to the term of “Creation”. All carbon dating and the founding of fossils, etc. were prior to the earthly enhancements.
Thoughts?
Not tenable. The seven days of Creation are figurative. God created the Sun and the lights of the night sky, for example, on the fourth figurative day. This cannot be literal, as you cannot have an earth, with the green plants of the third day, without a Sun. The 7 days are figurative, with the 7th day of rest, and the 6th day for the creation of humanity, the height of the creation of Earth.
This is explained at length in my book Adam and Eve versus Evolution.
A multiverse with an infinite number of universes is impossible. But could a multiverse with, say, 10 (or 10^10^10) unviverses be possible? And don’t say the theory postulates an infinite number, I am talking about a hypothetical finite number.
Why would God create so many different universes? We know theologically that Christ became a man and died only once, for all. So a large number of universes with many sentient beings, who never know Christ in their lives seems to make God’s plan foolish, which cannot be the case. On the other hand, a large number of universes, with no intelligent life also seems foolish, as intelligent life, with the ability to know, love, and worship God, would be absent.
Also, the term multiverse does not mean merely multiple universes, as the name seems to imply, but rather it speaks of related universes which supposedly have different versions of each of us. But there cannot be different version of Jesus, or Mary, or the Church. So all we are left with is the possibility of other universes, which lack purpose or meaning from a theological point of view.
Why not to concentrate on this visible Universe then. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, with hundreds of billions stars in each of them. It is not a theory that still has to be proven, they are already counted. How? Well, I heard even that question, along with: did you see it yourself? Actually, I have seen the latest Webb telescope pictures, and the older Hubble pictures with hundreds or thousands of galaxies piled up together in an area with smaller angle (as visible from Earth) than the letter O or the Moon (and very, very far away).
Sorry for those who buy into some questionable mystics, but the Milky way is not made out of dust… There are concrete proofs of that many stars, like a hundred billion for an average galaxy such as the Milky Way. Andromeda has a trillion of stars, it is bigger. Whoever denies all that, denies the omnipotence of God the Creator, and in fact makes himself “smarter and wiser” than God who found a purpose for all of His wonderful creation.
Was it St Augustine who wrote first among the Fathers that the 7 days of Creation are figurative, or others wrote before him? And all the major Catholic theologians after him too. It is a pity some still prefer the flat earth theory.