MULTIVERSE OR GOD?:A SPINOZA'S PROBLEM?

I must disagree with some contemporary scholars who say, like the British physicist Bernard Carr, that the existence of a Multiverse might be a valid alternative to God as a creator of everything, taking into account eternity which can be seen as an attribute of both.
According to those thinkers, every 'why' question would point backwardly to a multiverse, a peculiarity that would be enough to exclude any lack of a personified creator. 
But a first objection may be that not all religions share the idea of a humanized, personified creator. A philosophical approach to God, as in Spinoza's thought, for instance, could perfectly fit the concept of a Multiverse too. 'Deus sive Natura', in the philosopher's latim formula, which means "God or Nature". A Multiverse is a construct belonging to Nature, interchangeable with it.
Whether we conceive God as the original cause of all causes (an eternal being that giving the initial kick to creation at a vaguely defined point in time), or we conceive a multiverse as an instrumental concept from which every possible universes might derive, our conclusions are not different. We will not face any difficulty to see that both these thinking paths are equivalent from a logical-linguistic point of view.Whether we conceive God as the original cause of all causes (a vaguely defined point in time), or we conceive a multiverse as a tool concept from which every possible universes might derive, it is not difficult to see that both concepts have a same logical-linguistic value. 
It is often mentioned on this point that the question "HOW?" is the only answerable through the scientific, empirical methods. That's quite clear: science describes 'how' Nature appears before us and 'how' its parts interact. As for the question "WHY" it is never truly answered through the scientific method since after the explanation of any phenomenon, another 'why' immediately emerges.

For example: Newton's theory was the first to account for the attraction between the Earth and the falling bodies in our everyday lives, but also for the attraction of celestial bodies, like the moon, planets, etc... What an achievement! Particles are attracted by a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

But immediately his new "law of universal gravitation" gives rise to another WHY, e.g.:

WHY do particles attract each other in proportion to the product of their masses? Why not to a simple sum of their masses? Certainly, when these questions emerge, new answers soon come to our minds, but whatever they be, they give rise to infinite other ones. It doesn't matter how crazy or silly are they: we need to answer them. 

Returning to the beginning point, i.e., whether a multiverse could replace God's role as a 'cause of all causes', we have to find answers in different fields:

1) from a cosmological standpoint, the answer is: "Yes, of course".

2) from a philosophical viewpoint: "yes, the idea of a multiverse seems to fit well to Spinoza's formula "Deus sive Natura", "God or Nature";

3) from a jewish-christian theological  perspective: "no, by no means! A physical multiverse could never pose the foundations of the human ethics!"