Fine tuning argument assessed

[WesOlsen]

There's no evidence for other universes besides this one

That's not strictly true: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...c-map.html

It is difficult to test at the moment due to the obvious physical constraints regarding how far we can see and travel, hence it is confined to an existing wider framework of physics. However, it's also worth noting that there's no evidence for god either.

and if there were other universes they could all support life and/or intelligence of some kind for all we know and all have been created by God seeing as they are all effects of a cause one single eternal cause can cover all effects that ever occur.

If there were an infinite number of universes, a great many of them would almost certainly not be able to support any sort of life, assuming the values of gravity, strong force, weak force etc were varied significantly. Causal regress arguments reside at the very apex of nothingness. They are lazy and aren't based on anything experimental whatsoever. Either your criteria are clear for selection and rejection of things that don't require causes, or they aren't (as is currently the case). If one thing can be uncaused then potentially other things can be uncaused, and the 'chance' behind matter and anti-matter materialising is greater than that of a fully formed and functional super creature materialising from nothing, unless you've got a handy Darwinian explanation for the life-cycle of god. Basically, there are few widely circulated ideas with less evidence than multiverse theory, but religion is one of them.

The fine tuning argument just points out the contingency, complexity and rational comprehensibility of the universe, it isn't really a seething chaos even if it has some unpredictability.

Supermassive black holes are pretty chaotic, imho.