I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

GrandizerII

Fine, you're a multiverse person. Most atheists aren't willing to concede the multiverse theory is necessary and because there is no direct evidence of other universes. I respect it as a plausible theory and an explanation for fine-tuning of the universe for life. However, it also multiplies entities to infinity and beyond ala Occams razor. I consider it the ultimate time and chance, naturalism in the gaps theory.

Also, multiple worlds doesn't mean less simplicity. One could argue the addition of a supernatural being to what is otherwise a natural reality is what violates Occam's razor.

Occams razor isn't about simplicity, its about unnecessarily multiplying entities.

Also, people subscribe to a multiverse view for various rational reasons, and not because they need it to explain something like the assumed "fine-tuning" of this local universe. Even some theists have argued for a multiverse view in favour of God because of things like the principle of sufficient reason.

There are other reasons such as the double slit experiment which gives rise to the idea every decision leads to a new universe. There are reasons to think cosmic inflation occurred and some theorize that process goes on to create other universes. Or that our universe includes pocket universes in which there are different laws of physics. No matter how you slice it along with it comes the explanation for fine-tuning of the universe. Its is part and parcel with the theory of multiverse. They almost act like fine-tuning is evidence of other universes...its not. The fine-tuning of this universe didn't cause other universes to exist. The best evidence of other universes is the existence of this one and we observe things in multiples all the time such as other galaxies.
 
AI says...
The multiverse theory, which posits the existence of many universes with varying physical laws and constants, is often proposed as a naturalistic explanation for the apparent "fine-tuning" of our universe, suggesting that life-supporting conditions are merely a result of us inhabiting a universe that happens to be conducive to life. However, some argue that the multiverse itself requires fine-tuning, thus potentially undermining its explanatory power. 

There is no direct evidence of God either, so we're even.

That's right. So it goes back to what we do know a universe came into existence that was able to cause intelligent life to exist. Scientists know a host of improbable events, properties and circumstances obtained for a life happy planet like earth to exist. When folks say we owe the existence of the universe to natural causes they can't mean the natural forces we're familiar with in space-time. Those natural forces are what came into existence. I assume they just mean other forces that unintentionally came into existence and unintentionally caused a universe to exist and had no intention of causing intelligent life to exist. That's a very tall drink of water and that's why even non-religious people think our existence was intentionally caused. Including a lot of scientists. 

The multiverse is just as much about "chance" as God is. Is God "chance"? Nope? Then good luck arguing the multiverse (without God) is any different in this case.

Its not about chances which are incalculable, its about what explanation explains best. Most atheists I run into deny there is a need for multiverse.