I found the following comment about the article:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/09/n–one-of-the-m.html
>>>>
Posted by: Jack Butler | September 27, 2007 at 09:27 AM
In the story of Indra and Vishnu, as related by Joseph Campbell in The Inner Space of Outer Space, Vishnu elaborates to Indra, in order to teach the vainglorious godking humility, a scheme of infinite universes co-existing, each with its own Vishnu, Brahma, and so on. The story is at least 3000 years old, and probably far older.
Once again: It is common usage, but “parallel” is not an accurate representation of the notion of these branching universes. If they were parallel, they could not branch, or diverge (which word is derived from a word for branching).
>>>>
To answer your questions:
I don’t know, but allegedly the math works.
It neither proves nor disproves God’s existence.

I would venture to say that it proves God’s existence by representing the fact that all possibilities are inherently able to be predicted and seen mathematically, and knowing that God is omnipotent, and omniscient, wouldn’t that prove that he’s right there orchestrating it all by letting us see on paper that all possibilities are accounted for?

Reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges’ intricately written short stories about cosmology.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the existence or absence of G-d.

The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is just that: an interpretation. Clearly it is predictively useful, but drawing metaphysical interpretations from scientific models is profoundly problematic (as any philosopher of science will tell you).
At a theological level, some have tried to use this to save libertarian free will, but it precisely undermines it–you made that choice not because you made that choice, but because you just so happen to be in this universe, rather than that one. The outcome of free choices isn’t determined by human wills, but rather by mere chance.
Of course, extrapolating out to human choices from quantum indeterminacy is already a gigantic hypothetical step, so perhaps it’s the wrong course of action to start with.
All that to say, Everett’s interpretation is provocative–but that’s it.
Peace,
-Daniel-

What God is, if God is, is so outside of our ability to contain or conceive that I find it is best to be struck with an awe and beauty which is irreducible. Since at this most primary level it is irreducible, why must I try to reduce it?
Quantum uncertainty demonstrates limits to what is knowable at Planck distances. It may be indicative of parallel universes, or it may not. It certainly invites imaginative speculation, and that is fine provided that we do not attempt to impose an egoic preference upon it; to project a theological or philosophical model upon it.
Why is it that so many cannot approach the great mysteries without the need to impose their image upon them? Are we like Narcissus who sees only himself, or can we with real humility stand at the threshold and be open to that without the need to make of the mystery something that resides within us?
Left at the door of emptiness, sitting on the event horizon of eternity, can I look directly and be informed and transformed?
This is a key to solving the problem of religiously based conflict.