Are you suggesting now that any value must be fine tuned , including zero, and an ever so very slightly non zero also - as if nature is incapable of falling into any value by itself. You've proven nothing other than how much you're relying on mentioning multiverse to prop up your deity. You've previously called me liar for even suggesting constants in regions of this universe could vary, now you're acknowledging it. I suppose thatâs progress for you, of sorts. With infinite variations possible in the laws of nature, any kind of universe is possible. The need or question for a supernatural agency rendered pointless.
Multiverse is scientifically falsifiable in principle. God isn't. A falsifiable God would immediately become something, like gravity or quantum fluctuation, in line with the physical laws of the Universe.
Wrong piehole. Nobody knows if the concept of a creator is ultimately falsifiable or not. When you talk about things you don't understand, you make a fool of yourself -- like STUpid did with this load of nonsensical STUpidity: A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible. Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
Whatever. Post less and spend more time looking for your 'plausible celestial teapot'. That sure must've gotten under your skin
fwiw - I read this yesterday, you have probably all seen it anyway. http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/can-we-tell-if-reality-is-a-computer-simulation/