The real religion?

[GrandizerII]

God is even more complex with all its supposed omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, timelessness, spacelessness, etc. Why not also question how God could have just happened?

The existence of this observable universe with all its wonders and complexities is sufficiently explicable by the postulation of a multiverse, whereby each universe is preconditioned with random numbers, some of which inevitably leading to wonders such as what we have in this particular universe.

Also, you seem to be looking at life as some magical thingy, as if it was just switched on out of nowhere, rather than looking at life as a gradual process that became more and more clear over a long period of time as certain activities increased.

Please explain how postulation and random numbers will increase by bank account?  The multiverse theory is completely unobservable and at best a mere theory.  Rob, where are you when I need you to refute such claims when there is no evidence to support it and as you would say therefore not applicable?

Dismissing something as a magical thingy is an attempt to belittle my position.  Anyone can merely say they reject reality and insert their own.  I posted a claim that the complexity of the universe and life, for me and my application of logic, and reason, could best be attributed to a creation from design and with purpose.  Not random, indifferent, or it just happened from a natural process.

Sick 'em Rob, I'm waiting!

I wouldn't say the multiverse is completely unobservable. There are scientific hints that point to its existence, such as dark matter. But even so, one can say the same thing about your God. Your God is completely unobservable and not even a mere theory. It's just a mere postulation. Theories, by the way, are a good thing; they're not the same as guesses or speculations, they're well-tested explanations. I'm not saying the multiverse is a theory at this point, but it is nevertheless a reasonable hypothesis that needs some testing.

Your design explanation is not a good one because it's just basically an argument from ignorance or incredulity or the likes, and like robvalue said, it doesn't really explain much. How did the designer do this and that? Why is it even needed in the first place when these phenomena are mostly explicable without it?

Earthly life gradually arose from a collection of stuff, but it's not like human beings with all their complexities came about just like that from such primordial collection. It was very simple basic life-forms, not that different from what's considered nonliving, and over a long period of time, through evolution, complexities of life arose. I'm not trying to belittle your position, but rather to give you a different perspective on these things because I believe it helps to do so. If that bothers you, whatever.