sure god could exist and just decide to leave zero evidence

1. Well, there would need to be a mechanism making the multiverse. I could just say that is God.
3. It is not likely that we are in the few universes that we live in the fine-tuned universe. (I can explain further.)

Well, you would just have to disprove my thought experiments as they are "evidence".

If you can disprove these, we go back to square one.

Which I would return to the agnostic position.

1. that is an overly simplistic view of time and causality, that holds in classical physics but not quantum. time is summetrical, would you argue god must exist to destroy the universe? does the universe have a fixed end point?

if it doesnt need to have a fixed end it doesnt need a fixed beginning

the existence of god is still recursive, what created god? i could say that same process created our universe

So you are sayings that in quantum mechanism, in theory, somethings do not require a beginning?

yes

I am actually more inclined to empirical data then metaphysical.

I need to read into space-time science.

why do you assume nothingness or non existence is the default state and creation requires agency

maybe randomness and chaos is the default state, but islands of order and stability can evolve in a sea of chaos

particularly when symmetry breaking is involved

Well, I just assume what the Bible tells me. The universe was kinda there. And God was kinda there. And we just theorize.

I would assume if God is a maximally great-being, he MAY have preexisted the universe.

so what created god

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWbBNmZJ-xw

Noooooo

god doesnt really solve any problems, especially those with time and first causes

The chaotic tendency of nature is my assumption.

I just assumed the chaos popped out something which we called God.

I am not doing a good job with my thought experiment.

sure, but youre just invoking an extra step... that chaotic sea can create the universe directly

not everything needs a cause

without the need for god as an intermediary

~~1. Well, there would need to be a mechanism making the multiverse. I could just say that is God.~~
3. It is not likely that we are in the few universes that we live in the fine-tuned universe. (I can explain further.)

Let's do away with 1..

3. is debunked with the anthropic principle

Yeah, that is right. But in a way, I assume God is necessary and universe is contingent. I can not prove either.

Can you explain anthropic principle for me.

yeah if you want to just assume it, its fine, but like i said telelogical argument is just not necessary with our current knowledge of inflationary cosmology

anthropic principle is quite easy

what are the odds that baby birds hatch from an egg in a perfectly protected nest and a parent to feed and protect them

but, thats the only way they could exist

Given that we live in the conditions we observe presently, likely.

weak anthropic principle means, creatures that need oxygen to breathe will always find themselves on a planet with oxygen

just as likely it is random shit

replace oxygen with anything else

Well, I think I can make a novel point here.

its tautalogical if your existence requires something, you can onlye xist in an area where that is satisfied

if you combine anthropic principle with the vastness of the multiverse there's no need for anything else