Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?

[MindForgedManacle]

No, "intentional agent" is a meaningless expression that says nothing about the scope, mechansim, and complexity involved, and follows from neither known first principle, nor consist with any known empirical principle. As such it contains nothing, is based on nothing, explains nothing, and is nothing. As nothing, it is certainly not the most parsimonious way to be nothing. Simply shutting up will do the same more honestly and humbly, threrfore more parsimoniously, then invoking "intelligent" or "agent".

The phrase "intelligent agent" wasn't intended to be a thoroughly in-depth description of how some theists think the universe's allowance of life can be explained. All it is a description of the thing in particular that is to be the explanation.
If this objection were actually sound, then it could be used in all sorts of absurd ways such as saying that, I dunno, because an "intelligent agent" supposition as a starting point tells you nothing about the method and mechanism by which person X was killed, they must have died from natural causes.

The parsimony of the multiverse comes from the fact that it assumes nothing about the nature of fundamental constants of the universe, and quantum mechanical concept of randomness, that does not follow from any postulated first principles that we have reason to suspect to be true. i.e. it dispenses with the assumption that fundamental constants has to be what we see even though we haven't the slightest idea why, that what we suspect to be true randomness in fact must only happen in the way it actually observed to happen. If we know of no reason why things can't be different, then do not assume that it can not be, and is not, different. Multiverse is a conjecture about how, if not making these assumptions is correct, reality might actually be on the true macro scale.

I doubt theists even believe that the constants have to be as they are. In fact, people like William Lane Craig specifically - in their usage of the argument - deny that there is any such necessity. Otherwise their God conjecture is entirely pointless. Rather, they point to it being intentionally designed to allow life, and try to support that by pointing out that life prohibiting universes are, apparently, supposed to be far more probable.

Multiverse does not ACCOUNT for fine tuning. It remove the basis for saying there had been tuning. It was not conceived in response to the garbage about tunning. It followed logically and economically from our current understanding of fundamental lws of physics, which says fundmental constants has no reason for being what they are in our observation, and random event has no reason for happening only in the way we observe to eventuate. The economic answer is they can be different where we havn't yet observed.

I see I'll have to repeat myself. I'm *not* saying that the purpose of the multiverse hypothesis - as proposed by scientists - is to specifically account for fine-tuning. What I am saying (for the 3rd time) is that if you're specifically putting forward the (as yet unconfirmed) multiverse for the expressed purpose of it to undermining the case for a fine-tuned universe (and proposing countless other universes) then you are not being parsimonious.

No intentional agent is called for, we are here only because we are possible and all that can ever be possible would eventuate, and therefore we eventuates.

And that is by definition not parsimonious (proposing that all possibilities with eventually actualize), if it is for the expressed purpose of undermining this theistic argument, which some here have seemed to have been doing.

By the way, go back and think about the boiling pot example. The superficial complexity of the multitude of bubbles do not make boiling pot non-parsimonious. The parsiminious laws of phase change and fluid behavior, applied uniformly over a pot of water, makes the multitude of bubbles parsimonious.

I thought the analogy wasn't analogous and kind of irrelevant honestly.

The simple laws that respond to fundamental constants, and the lack of laws constraining fundamental constants, is what makes appearent complexity of multiverse simple at a more fundamental level and a rather parsimonious conjecture of how reality really is.

Well, then you're drawing in an element of randomness and mind-boggling numbers, which could see giving theist more ammunition against that type of response.

The conjecture of "intelligent agent" on the other hand, consists of nothing that allows its parsimony to be evaluated. In fact it consists of nothing at all. .

Well as I pointed out earlier, I don't think that objection will work against theistic proponents of this argument, or against really any other.