My apologies won't leave for thinking you were a witness. I must have subliminally picked that up from your name, and your attempt at defending the garden of eden story as sensical.
A united world of any peaceful belief system would make the world a great place, especially if you use the "no true scottsman" fallacy. It's not the christians that do bad things, it's the people pretending to be christians. True christians don't make the world a bad place. If you asked a muslim, or a hindu or a jew you would get the same answer. It's not muslims that are making the middle east chaotic. It's people pretending to be muslims. True muslims are peace loving, and selfless. Works with political ideoligies too. True communism would make the world a great place, and if a communist regime does poorly, it's not true communism. That's the thing about idealism, any ideal will work as long as it's ideal.
"I reject your model because it precludes free will. If there is no free will then all is fore-ordained and pointless; not to mention unscriptural."
And that's where reason breaks down. You reject my model because you don't like the conclusion. Dismissing a logical model that demonstrates a flaw with a belief system on the grounds that it doesn't agree with he belief system is to put the cart before the horse, to make a postulate an axiom and then use it to gauge any proofs or disproofs for that postulate is circular. My brother was the same way. He couldn't find a logical or reasonable way to make the bible make sense, to justify genocide, to reconcile pre-meditated mass murder with the ideal being of love, of fairy tales of giant boats and floods, but didn't want to live in a world where there was no omnipotent being that embodied love. And so he continued to believe the witnesses. Dealing with the conclusion wasn't something he could do.
You said scientists are people too, and look for proofs of their pet theories. This is known as confirmation bias, something the scientific method was developed to correct for. Confirmation bias is when you pay special attention to things that confirm what you believe, but ignore or toss out things that contradict what you believe. Such as rejecting a model, not because you can show how it's wrong, but because it doesn't agree with what you believe already.
Also, it's not that I believe that there are infinite universes, what I was talking about in Briane Greene's book was IF the universe was infinite, which was merely for illustrative purposes. For the purposes of the theology I was discussing an infinite number of universes is unneccessary because infinite time is required for what god proposes to do.