That is exactly what I believe, I don't think we have any disagreement, TM. I believe we are saying exactly the same thing.
Perhaps I worded something incorrectly.
Yes, I have to disagree with you again, I read what you wrote wrong, it was my fault, not yours. 
Ok, assume that the multiverse exists. What created that?
I'll say this much. I think you raise a very important point with the fine-tuning argument, which most people think is just about whether or not a universe will be hospitable to life. But it's so much more. For example, if the strong nuclear force was weaker, the universe wouldn't simply be inhospitable to life--atoms wouldn't exist!
It just seems that there is an astronomical number of ways to go wrong compared to 'right' when it comes to fine-tuning.
This astronomical number of possibilities, in turn, would seem to suggest that the universe is contingent (i.e., it's possible for it not to exist), which would further seem to entail that it is not uncaused, but requires a cause external to itself.
The new facts don't change the odds, do they? To what new facts are you referring?
?
You lost me on "new facts." I don't think I said anything about "new facts." Were you commenting on a different post?
?
You lost me on "new facts." I don't think I said anything about "new facts." Were you commenting on a different post?
Yes, sorry, I'll go back and respond with a quote.
Did everyone hear about this?! AI robot playing chess simul. breaks kid's finger! The robot was probably losing. Great, now even AI are poor sports! (click link to see video)
Russian-chess-robot-breaks-childs-finger-moscow-match
That is exactly what I believe, I don't think we have any disagreement, TM. I believe we are saying exactly the same thing.
Perhaps I worded something incorrectly.