We don't need to know the origin to understand what gravity does and what would happen if it wasn't what it is.
But we can't make any claims about why gravity is what it is or why it is even there in the first place.
How it works and why it works the way it works are
two different questions.
Oh, of course....they are just speculating not asserting. How is this entirely different?
You don't know the difference between speculation and assertion?
No wonder you have such a hard time grasping your reasoning errors.
How many times in a scientific study do we bring in the possibility of unknowns as stopping our conclusions?
Here's the thing... you are not providing a scientific hypothesis. Instead, you are providing a
religious belief.
"
the tuner/god dun it" is not a scientific claim. It's a religious assertion.
We can not know if there are other universes. So how are other universes any better in explanation than God?
You must be confusing me with someone who claims there are other universes, in order to ask this question.
Having said that, multi-verse ideas are more likely then god-ideas, for the simple reason that at least one universe demonstrably exists. Not a single god demonstrably exists.
For that reason alone, assuming other universes might exist is a far more reasonable assumption as opposed to assuming gods exist.
Also, how do other universes eliminate fine tuning?
This assumes that there is something that even requires "elimination" in the first place. You haven't shown that this is the case. Nobody needs to "eliminate" baseless religious claim in science.
But scientists have shown the values are improbable.
You keep claiming this, but it is just not true.
There are books written about how improbable scientist find the universe having the values we have.
Scientists sharing their opinions is not the same as scientists demonstrating things.
Btw, there are also books written about how no designers are required for a universe like our own.
Krauss' "A universe from nothing" and Hawking's "The Grand Design" come to mind. But you have allready shown in the past how you handwave away "authorities" that don't seem to agree with your a priori beliefs.
If this issue was refuted, then present it.
Already done that, ad nauseum. And again in the very post you are replying to. You even acknowledge my exact point by saying that if one has only a green apple as data, one cannot assume that apples can be purple as well. You agree that that doesn't make any sense.
By extension, claiming that universes could have different values is
equally nonsensical. Seeing as how our sample of universes equals exactly ONE.