I will prove to you that God exists

[Drew_2013]

The answer of whether the universe and life was intentionally caused or was unintentionally caused by mindless natural forces is up for debate and at this point all anyone has is there opinion. I could be wrong...you could be wrong. Stop pretending its cut and dry and one opinion is obvious and the other preposterous.

Emergent behaviors that lead from a simple set of basic rules to complex behaviors are favoured by thermodynamics because they're a more efficient mechanism for achieving stable low-energy, high-entropy states more rapidly. These emergent behaviors favour the emergence of life and sentience. The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

3. Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. This means that heat spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold object, not the other way around.
The rules of thermodynamics leads to more disorder, not more complexity.

Where or when did the simple set of basic rules come into play? Is E=MC^2 a simple rule or the dozens of formulas and equations we extracted from mindless natural forces? The micro world is dominated by quantum physics one of the most difficult things to understand is it simple? Is the double slit experiment where matter behaves differently if its being observed than not being observed? Any simple explanations for that?  Is the singularity from which its alleged the universe came from simple? Is whatever existed prior to the big bang is simple? Scientists describe it as where the known laws of physics break down. Even in biology it was thought at one time that single cells are simple but as they dug into it, it became vastly more complex than originally thought. Mindless natural forces without plan, intent or a degree in biology somehow figured out how to transform non-biological matter into living matter. A feat that still eludes scientists...shouldn't that have been simplicity in itself? 

The result is that the entire "fine-tuning" argument is a retrospective view that mistakenly underestimates how likely it is that sentience might arise in any possible universe.

Have you written a thesis on this to straighten out actual scientists who make a living doing science? 

Max Tegmark:

A prominent advocate for the mathematical multiverse, which suggests that all possible mathematical structures exist in a separate universe.

Brian Greene:

A string theorist who explores the implications of the multiverse, including the possibility of other universes with different laws of physic

Lee Smolin:

A theoretical physicist who argues that the multiverse may be necessary to explain why our universe has the laws it does.

Alan Guth:

A physicist who developed the theory of inflation, which suggests that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, potentially leading to a multiverse

Michio Kaku:

A popular science writer and theoretical physicist who has written extensively about the multiverse and its implications.

Sean Carroll:

A theoretical physicist who has argued for the multiverse based on his work in cosmology and quantum mechanics

Leonard Susskind:

A theoretical physicist who has explored the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and its connection to the multiverse

Andrei Linde:

A physicist who has developed the theory of eternal inflation, which suggests that the multiverse is constantly being created

David Deutsch:

A theoretical physicist who has explored the implications of the multiverse for our understanding of quantum mechanics and consciousness

Alexander Vilenkin:
A physicist who has worked on the theory of cosmic inflation and its connection to the multiverse. 

Laura Mersini-Houghton:

A physicist who studies the multiverse and its implications for cosmology

These scientists are all well respected and they're not closet theists with a degree in zoology. Most if not all are atheists. These are your people...not mine. The irony here is because they believe in naturalism and naturalist explanations, that they are committed to multiverse theory. Why do they think its necessary for there to be an infinitude of universes? Are they so stupid they don't know about thermodynamics? Are they so dumb they don't know that 'maybe' the universe for some unknown reason had to come out as it did? No, they reject that asinine suggestion because what could cause a universe emerging from a singularity to have the same characteristics as if it was made from a cookie cutter? That looks more like plan and intent. When you drill down all these scientists claim multiverse at least in part because of the observed fine-tuning of the universe. I know its a kick in the pants, its clearly a bodacious theory and the theory itself states we can't detect these other universes. Its indisputably a time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument that for the time being is unfalsifiable. These folks are well aware of the critics of multiverse theory. I'm sure they're aware of you and others pathetic objections.

My hypothesis our universe was intentionally caused to produce life is based (in part) on the same knowledge and observations these people of science base multiverse on. They're allowed to have their hypothesis and I'm allowed to have mine. Some day you folks might attempt cough up some better explanation so far you're not succeeding which is why people don't believe you. 

By all means be sure you submit your thesis for publication...I'm sure they need a good belly laugh.