Faith, properly considered, in my view, will inescapably take us beyond the empirical and rational, but it doesn't travel without it. It thus requires both logical validity and as much abductive plausibility as can be mustered, all which can be incredibly suggestive even if not syllogistically decisive. The best models of faith "certainly" enjoy epistemic parity with competing models of reality.

Faith goes beyond the merely informative, which might consider knowledge as empirical and analytic, to the robustly performative, which evokes Walker Percy's distinction between Information and NEWS.
This is to say that it's not just a descriptive (factual), evaluative (value-oriented) and normative (moral & practical) determination, it has an interpretive aspect, which reveals itself in terms of existential actionability, a "living as if" this model of reality is suitably justified.

One can be certain that the Good News enjoys as much existential actionability and epistemic virtue
as any competing model of reality ever has or ever will. It's an axiological jacket that fits, but one must try it on to be "certain."

What justifies its performative significance? Walker Percy would insist we evaluate its informative elements (I'd say logical validity & significant abductive plausibility), its relevance to our human predicament and the trustworthiness of the author.

Jesus asks: Who do you say I am?

Even as one vascillates: To Whom shall we go?

But more interestingly, and I say this as an atheist, I would think that such certainty would be damaging to the concept of faith. There can be no believers in something which clearly and undoubtedly exists.

Thanks. Unity within the physical universe. Makes me think or connect this quest to both pantheism, and monism. The atheists, which I prefer to call Naturalists do generally 'believe' or 'have faith' that there is some sort of unity. Unlike the Buddhists they are looking for it within the material 'world' as some kind of modern version of ore-socratic aleithia. (Not sure of spelling)

That's a valuable insight about the field theories. Thanks. :)

Thanks for your assurance, Paul. But I also believe that Catholicism is monist, and that this is related to the concept of unity, (anti-Cartesian) as both mind and body are 'united' in God. Although I am still attempting to understand the idea of 'incarnation' within the Christian context, from 'man/woman's perspective', that the intellect of God is considered to be 'manifest', I can't help think that this recognizes some form of 'pantheism'. In this way, if not 'the whole ensemble' (although it is an assumption that such intellect would necessarily be all-inclusive) it is recognition that the intellect is indeed an incarnation of the primary 'source'. So, again I find that when it comes to theology, these ideas, have not been surpassed in any of the world religions or naturalistic theories. Indeed without such an assumption, even if merely human, I don't believe physicists would strive to 'discover' even a unified field theory, etc . etc. Thanks.

I think that's pretty-much right about Spinoza. He thought mind and body are two of an infinite number of God's attributes. Spinoza didn't know about the multiverse hypothesis, but it seems to fit naturally into his philosophy in one of two ways.

God could have be set of mind/body pairs for each universe. Or all the multiverse altogether, the whole ensemble, is part of a single attribute of God.

I think it's also right the idea that the division of attributes is more a way that we understand God than the way God actually is. God is neither mind nor body; we can think of the mind of God and the body of God, but they are fundamentally the same substance. Spinoza was a monist.

Thanks for your comments regarding Spinoza's conception of a God as 'substance' with infinite attributes. Although it has been a 'human' characteristic to identify that 'unknown source' with some form of intelligence, is it not possible that, as recognized, this intelligence is an 'unknown/unknowable?' 'substance'. But the concept of unity is indeed a powerful one, although my understanding is that Buddhism does not recognize this factor within the material universe. Is it not possible or implied by Spinoza that this 'source of all' is greater than, is more different than, that intelligence that we recognize as consciousness? Perhaps whatever what we do not know, God is, is neither mind nor matter? But we sure speculate both in science and theology, in similar ways, as to what this 'final answer/being/non being' IS ?

Although but a superficial reading, while investigating Hinduism some time ago, I came upon the idea that the cosmologists today could be considered to be giving an update of this most ancient of all traditions. There cosmology recognized the concept of multiverses, although perhaps the idea could have been related to what evidence was available with respect to the constellations within our 'home universe'. Their primary god, Brahman, however, is considered to be the manifestation of this universe, although he is conceived in what? an animistic? way, in which his eyebrows could be seen in flowers, his food in the waves of the ocean, etc. etc. Metaphor perhaps rather than mythology? But with this in mind, I believe that any account of origins could be considered theological, (identify based) in the sense of being thought of as an ultimate explanation. Like the aperion in presocratic philosophy. My understanding of a recent question in a previous blog: 'Atheist' to my thinking is a very inappropriate term.

I believe a multiverse scenario, if true, would lead to greater certainty in an eternal omnipotent Creator than a single universe. Such a Creator would have the potential to create an infinite number of universes for eternity, and in a multiverse scenario he does just that.

The multiverse, therefore, far from being a way to side -step God, is the complete opposite. If proved, it is evidence of an eternal and omnipotent Creator in a way that a single universe could never be, because it displays the full potential of such a Creator.

The multiverse would be an eternal and infinite sign of an eternal and infinitely powerful Creator. The eternity and omnipotence of the Creator would be recognised by his eternal and infinite handiwork.

How do we know that there are an infinite number of other universes? Why not just 10, or 10^500? Why must it be infinite?Also, how do we know that all or any of these universes have a beginning from no space and time? Maybe there's never been a beginning to time. And how do we know that this timeless state is common to all the universes? Maybe there are multiple timeless states.

Most important for this discussion, how does any of this imply an eternal omnipotent creator?