Well, imagine that you & I never met, Alison. By not meeting one-another in any form (becoming aware of the existence of the other), a lot of possible 'fates' (I hate using such esoteric terms, but they're the best I can think of at the moment) for eitherof us are precluded. The 'world' where, say, I ask you to lunch does not exist. The world where you're debating me as a deist and you're the atheist does not exist. The world where we meet-up and you kick me in balls doesn't exist. The world where you and I are married doesn't exist. Etc.

No 'world' (Or 'slice' from the 4th dimensional axis) involving you and I interacting would ever exist in a universe where you and I never knew about the existence of the other (even if, say, only I knew about you, this changes your potential 'fate'. Insert imaginative things I could do to you here).

The same is true for the small particles we observe - only they feel the impact of what happens when they lose a bunch of 'potential selves' because their mass is so trivial.

Again, all theoretical, of course. Hop down to the library and borrow a copy of the book (...See? Even by simply suggesting that, I've flexed your 4th dimensional axis. It's now a possible outcome that you would take the advice and go to the library... which leadsto even more branches, as the library is full of things that impacts your potential 'fate' even more. I suppose this is why some people find the idea threatening: there's nothing I can do that is strictly benign, from this perspective).

I'm confused just a bit about the "4th dimension" talk. Usually the 4th dimension is time, so are you thinking of a separate dimensional aspect that determines location in a multi-universe setting, and just ignoring time?

When ever I discuss 4th dimensional ideas I use universe instead of world. It helps the listener create a greater, all encompassing, distinction between the possible outcomes. Also helps a great deal later when discussing folds, which usually follows.

So Let me start with laying out the possible explanations of existence without a deity, and please tell me if I miss one. I do consider myself a seeker of knowledge. Okay so as I see it There are only two possible explanations for the existence of everything without a deity.

First all matter and energy had a beginning. If this is the case you need a creation force. I am not saying this theory turns on it's self and proves a creator, although I do think that is the simplest conclusion. What I am saying is that you need a creative force. If, and at this point that is a big if, there is no deity in this scenario then by necessity the force must not be self aware. Just not to let anything slide by this force must also be something other then matter or energy because we are assuming that matter and energy have a beginning. 

Of course then we are left to argue about how this force came into being: does it still leave room for a deity, if a very removed one; is this force finite or infinite in the first place. Answering these questions I think would always be the domain of philosophers because science is constructed around the ability to observe the physical world and make rationalizations about it. Now as we all Know this is not the most popular atheistic view, not solely but partially I believe because it violates the logic that the simplest possible answer is likely the right one. Again please tell me if I am wrong on any point here.

Second the universe is infinite. It is science that creates a problem for this theory. Let me first state that the theory that time is just a construct is unscientific. You may or may not have heard that time slows down as you get farther away form the earth and eventually ceases to exist at all. I think we all can see that this is just the newest geocentric viewpoint that seeks to put the earth in the center of the universe. We all now that the earth is not the center of anything, so why would it be that time slows down in relation to distance form the earth, and if time does for some yet to be discovered reason slow down the further you get form earth it can not possibly reach the point of nonexistence until after if even just after the furthest particle of matter or wave of energy form the earth because science has proven time is a dimension in which things exist just as the first three dimensions are. It is easy for people to conceive that the first three dimensions are necessary for matter to exist. Quite simply you can not have something if there is nowhere for it to be. The same holds true for time you can not have something with no time for it to exist in. I am not well versed in the higher sciences such as Quantum physics but I do know there is a concept that boils down to this: Time is not separate from the first three dimensions but simply a continuance. That's why they always explain it as the squaring of a block. The point is no matter can exist without the 4 dimensions. At this point you may be thinking yeah so what what does it mean.

Well time is where the problem comes in. Time it self can not exist if it is infinite. Everything about matter is measurable mass, size and duration. Duration would not be measurable if matter where infinite. You might think that I have logically proven that time is just a construct, not so fast. We know for a fact that the first three dimensions of matter are in fact finite. This is a scientific fact. We also know that time is not separate from the first three dimensions but a continuance, therefore time must be finite because it is impossible to reach the infinite from the finite.  That brings me to my final point since matter can not exist without time matter had to of had a beginning which invalidates the theory.

Our Universe, as originated in the Big Bang, is NOT infinite. It has been expanding from a very small volume at a finite rate for a finite time, therefore can only be finite.

As to whether whatever metaverse our Big Bang may have spawned from, we don't know.

Any explanation for where the Big Bang 'singularity' originated that assumes that it must have been greater in complexity or scale, let alone was sentient or conscious in some sense, fails logically, since you now have a greater mystery to explain, as what created this 'creator'.

Since we know that complexity certainly can arise from simplicity - even our own growth from a fertilized cell to a conscious human being demonstrates that, since no matter how you cook it, a conscious human is vastly more complex than a fertilized cell.

So Deities cannot be logical explanation for ultimate origins.

Just a couple of the more obvious problems with your post.

The problem with deism is that it is woefully unnecessary, and that it hinders an admittedly small put potentially useful section of cosmology.

The deistic god created the universe, started it going, and then left.  It has no impact on the universe after creation, and is thus used to explain one thing and one thing only: how the universe came into being.

Unfortunately, it's explanation invokes a being that is no longer around, and that is generally incomprehensible to humans.  Thus saying "god made the universe and then left" gives us exactly the same amount of knowledge as saying "we don't know how the universe came into being."  The deistic claim gives us nothing.

However, the deistic claim does discourage further investigation of the topic.  Perhaps its answer is more accurately "we can't know how the universe came into being."  The deist admits defeat here.  He/she does not and can never understand the universe's origins (according to his/her own beliefs).  This halts scientific progress that could have possibly resulted in a natural and comprehensible answer to the question that may in turn yield information about the future of the universe (and may thus be useful).

Aside:  This is a core problem inherent to the use of god as an explanation of anything.  Deists happen to face it only once because they use god for one explanation and then discard it.

Re Quantum Stuff:  MWI requires a sot of "universe" collapse akin to the wavefunction collapse.  Also quantum computing and cryptography both play well with the superposition interpretation. 

But you're describing MWI with an extra dimension, which is very different from the MWI i've heard of.  However, it sounds like this extra dimension is eerily similar to the early "hidden variable" ideas.  The test of Belle's inequality confirms that such hidden variable interpretations would require nonlocality (faster than light causality).  Alternatively you've got multiple universes stacked along this extra dimension, which would require a dimensional (universe) collapse akin to the wavefunction collapse.   Basically, some form of collapse is going to be in any local interpretation of quantum, thanks to the violation of Belle's inequality.

That's incorrect, Zaq. A many-worlds collapse would just be wavefunction collapse by another name, alternately you could say if the many-worlds collapse, you don't have MWI at all, you simply have CI.

MWI dstinguishes itself from CI fundamentally, so to speak, on the grounds that the wavefunction is the total description of the universe - ie the worlds exist, and continue to exist, with respect to any frame of reference, and by no means figuratively, on some branch at some randomly differentiated phase.

By "superposition interpretation" do you mean that the permanent state of things is superposition? because that is MWI. Collapse interpretations do not spare the superposition of particles, they, by definition, declare that it ceases to exist by some mechanism, under certain conditions.

Non-locality is not 'faster than light causality' exactly, it is a mechanism by which entanglement might be explained without contradicting the first and central law of Einstein's relativity, which has given us so much stuff over this last century we probably ought to respect it, so it refers to events which would appear to be "caused" at a pace faster than light, but it's not to suggest that an actual causal mechanism, as we ordinarily know them, traverses a path faster than light can.  But anyhow, if we are to put any stock in the formulation of the Bell's inequality tests then we should surmise that as of 1998 non-locality is universally proven, not merely for hidden variable theories but for all Quantum theory.

Many worlds isn't really a local interpretation and it supposes no actions at a distance at all, so it by no means needs to tag another one on after Bells inequality. Maybe you should get into some more up to date material on MWI, Zaq, a lot has been done with it in the last decade.

Eloise, the collapse I'm talking about in MWI isn't so much a collapse (destruction) of the universes themselves as a collapse of the universes' interference, or as some view it a collapse of "which universe is my consciousness in?"  In the two-slit experiment, measuring the path prevents the electron in universe A from intefering with the electron in unverse B, which is a collapse of interference between universes (and solidifies us as being in a particular universe).  This is the "collapse" I was talking about.

Superposition compared to MWI and CI:  MWI: The particle has a different value in each of many worlds.  CI: The particle has no value (only probability of value) until measured.  Superposition:  The particle simultaneously has all values in a single world.  It collapses to a single value upon measurement.

Superposition is similar to MWI except that all the values are simultaneously attributed to a single particle in a single universe.

Yeah, I guess I was linking nonlocality and faster-than-light causality too strongly here.  I was thinking of the Pilot Wave Interpretation (PWI), which really does suggest an actual instantaneous causal mechanism for these faster-than-light events (the mechanism is, of course, the pilot wave).  Is there a word for this that's stronger than nonlocality?  Causally nonlocal?