I was using the multi-verse to show how fine tuning is not like a lottery. The multi-verse doesn't eliminate the fine tuning argument because there needs to be something that cranks out all those universes and produces the laws that govern them, that process would entail its own laws.
Why must that something be conscious, or directed, or anything other than just an extension of natural processes of universes? Maybe some universes divide, or reproduce, or fracture into other universes from time to time. We know so little on the subject, that all those proposals would be considered reasonable and valid. We just don't know, and how would we know how universes come to be in a multiverse we're not even sure exists? And yet, you dare to assume that this, or a single universe model, or any universe origin model, would require a deity to work, on the basis of nothing but our own ignorance on the matter? We don't even know enough about any of this to think it looks fine-tuned, random, or any other such thing. To make an opinion is jumping the gun. Sigh, this is why I hate talking physics. So much unknown stuff, our ignorance is overwhelming.
Would you say the same of the scientists in biology and evolution?
Absolutely. Sure, there are arguments so completely debunked and old that using them seriously is a sign of complete ignorance to the topic at hand, and even those people will not cease to use those arguments without seeing the refutations. It'd be ridiculous for me to assume the position I support is wrong just because there is a chance my argument is bad, and it's be even more foolish for me to try to use statistics to see the chances of my argument being debunked than just finding the rebuttal.
Biology has the benefit of being a subject with far fewer unknowns than physics, which makes debunking arguments a lot easier. Speaking of that, are you going to actually try yourself to destroy my argument, or do you want to hide behind hypothetical rebuttals?
My point was that scientists in most fields of science are methodological in their work. Bias exists I agree. It exists in humans period. However, those biases do not affect the measurements of the fundamental constants nor the necessary requirements for this universe to exist including the intelligent life therein. Where bias comes in is in interpreting what those facts mean.
Yeah, and the presence of measured constants doesn't equate to deities on any objective level. I think you fail to realize that the fine-tuning thing is an interpretation rife with certain biases inherent in our species. We design tools for a purpose. As a result of us liking to fit things into neat little boxes, if any item, designed or otherwises, looks like it has some use or purpose, we automatically are prone to thinking it is designed, even if it isn't.