One of the strongest scientific arguments for the existence of an intelligent creator is the anthropic principle which basically demonstrates that there is an extremely low probability that an “accidental” universe could sustain life. Atheists sometimes counter with the pseudo-scientific proposal that there could be an eternal “mother” universe which generates an infinite number of “child” universes with random physical laws and it is by happy chance that we happen to find ourselves in the one that supports life. Since the “mother” universe is eternal, it has no beginning and therefore needs no creator to explain it.
The first problem I see with this premise is that, at least in a scientific sense, infinity does not exist. Much like the square root of negative one, or i, infinity belongs to the group known as imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are often useful in solving mathematical problems but they do not/can not exist in the real world. However, just suppose that there is another universe to which our scientific laws do not apply. Attempting to define it using our own scientific laws would be patently absurd.
Assuming that somehow an eternal mother universe does exist, here is the second problem I see with this premise: Given a sufficient length of time, all possibilities must eventually occur. This universe proves that life is indeed possible. Furthermore, this universe has existed only 14 billion years or so and is already showing limited signs of an intelligent self-awareness in the form of mankind (mankind does not just exist in this universe – we are a part of it). Given an eternity, how much more would this intelligence have evolved? This other universe would, by necessity, be “infinitely” intelligent and self-aware. What we would essentially have is a supremely intelligent entity which created the universe in which we live. How is that any different from the basic concept of God?
Far from eliminating the need for a Creator to explain the creation of our universe, this mother/child universe proposal merely offers yet another explanation, albeit circuitous, of how God might exist.