4. Yes. If the universe were truly amoral then there would be no need to ask any questions of morality. The fact that we are even aware of the concept of morality is significant. To me this is a key point in the existence of God. If science limits itself to only the physically testable portion of the universe, then it has in essence denied the existence of anything beyond the physical universe. To attempt to define good and evil from this limited perspective seems very futile to me and also very subjective. This is where the conservative theologian who would believe in absolute truth and definitive good and evil would strongly disagree with the naturalistic scientist. I find it ironic that the theologian progresses from relativism to absolutes and the scientist would progress from absolutes to relativism.
The whole concept of the possible existence of multiple parallel universes is mind boggling but so is free will. I don't think that Heaven is these multiple universes, if they exist at all, but transcends these. If the multiple universes exist, I believe that they might be more related to our free will more then the place where God dwells, in essence we might actually be navigating them but don't realize it. Our actions and choices would determine our destiny.
One last thought. The naturalistic scientist basically assumes that the physical universe operates by the same rules today as it did yesterday since it's beginning. The theologian, if coming from a Biblical worldview, believes that the universe dose not operate by the same rules today that it did when it was created. If sin has corrupted the universe, then the universe we observe today is in aspects broken. The answers to scientific questions from physical evidences would then need to filtered, analagous to trying to figure out how a car appeared and functioned before it was in a wreck while it is sitting in the junk yard.
