I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? 

I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it? 


It is irrational / fallacious, to claim something is or might be true, because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence.

The entire dialog is a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We don't know if other universes exist, or if they do exist for some unknown reason they had be the same as the universe we live in. Despite not knowing if any of those things are true, the conversation was about if such is true. As a rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument I was given a what if scenario. What if other universes exist and they're all the same as this one. I pointed out it wouldn't help the argument our existence was unintentional.

Lets try larger letters, see if that helps?

It helps you appear to be a petulant little child who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way. If that was your intent yes it helps.

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? 

Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, does this fact influence your decision to believe in alchemy at all? Please explain why it does, or does not, so I can  try and understand why you keep rehashing the same fallacious arguments.

Isaac Newton wasn't wrong about alchemy. He just didn't have the power of a supernova in his lab. Hydrogen and helium can be fused into exotic matter like gold platinum and many other elements.

You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

You don't seem to read very well, since this is another dishonest straw man, so lets try big letters again then:

On the contrary I don't believe the multiverse hypothesis evidences anything supernatural, or any deity, and I have already stated this fact, more than once. I don't care who believes in multiverses, and I don't care what their reasons are, only what the methods of science can and has validated. 

Has science validated your claim we owe the existence to non-God explanations? Have they validated the claim is wasn't intentionally caused by a Creator?

Whilst theoretical scientific hypothesis are both essential to advance our knowledge, and no doubt fascinating and edifying in any number of ways, they are not established or accepted scientific theories, and this has also been explained already. Multiverse is an hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory. Do you understand this, and what it means?

Stop with the hubris I can understand what you say and disagree precisely for that reason. I can show you the word theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably Both multiverse and cosmic inflation are listed as scientific theories even though they don't have the evidence to make them accepted scientific theories. Technically yes its a hypothesis.

We once had no natural explanation for lightning, and so people insisted it had a supernatural cause. Their reasoning like yours here was fallacious / poor, and they were wrong. 

The fallacy is circular reasoning. If a scientist in a weather simulation causes the conditions that cause simulated lightening to occur would you say that lightening was caused naturally? Likewise if the universe was intentionally created with the laws of physics would it still be accurate to say it was the result of natural causes if ultimately it goes back to a Creator that caused the laws of physics? To declare lightening, gravity, laws of physics are natural phenomenon, we have to know its natural forces 'all the way down'. The argument is the assumption of naturalism in the gaps. 

Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over. 

Doesn't mean there is. If it turned out we owed our existence to an advanced scientist in a another sphere of existence, would you consider that a natural explanation? Why not, humans might be able to do so or at least simulate it. Would you consider scientists who do that in the future to be supernatural deities?