Is the anthropic appeal invalid?

Wow, what an investment! Thanks.
But now he tells me that in the past they also thought there were no more stars outside the solar system, and now we know there are billions of billions…

According to this common sense, one can claim that there are demons and flying camels without proving it because in the past they thought there weren't many stars and now they know that there are.
Maybe also claim that there is a God even though he thinks not because in the past they were also wrong about the number of stars.
And maybe our logic is also worthless because in the past we were wrong more than once.
In fact, in front of my house are legions of aliens, each with a backpack with ten universes on his back
How can I not see them? In the past they also thought there were few stars.
By the way, although in the past they didn't know about galaxies, they understood that there were masses of stars. Already in the Torah, God Almighty says this to Abraham that there is blue on the shore of the sea.

In Deuteronomy we see that they thought the number of stars was about six hundred thousand stars: “And you are today as the stars of the sky for multitude” (Deuteronomy 10). I am still waiting for us to get closer to the actual number of stars.

But flying camels and fairies are not like different universes, after all we know a universe with laws, so why shouldn't there be universes with different laws too?
It's more like life on another planet, which we don't know exists but shouldn't be rejected as existing, right?

Y”D, so what?
Yosef, why would they be? Why do you assume that the laws of nature in the stars are the same as here? Maybe these are universes with different laws? And in general, for the argument to hold water, every universe needs to have different laws of nature.
And besides, we know camels, so why shouldn't there be flying camels? We know people, so why shouldn't there be aliens? Why shouldn't there be is a very weak argument. But I think I've exhausted it. Refer to the above sources, where I explained what I have to say about this nonsense.

I broke down
Attempted refutation of the statistical inference of the ontological proof:
Sample: 1 (there is one world)
Variance: Infinite
Statistical inference ability: 0

I knew why I shouldn't break down. What I wrote already appears on page 14 of the third booklet:
“The probability (or, more correctly, the likelihood) of God's existence cannot be calculated, since we have no scope of possibilities and no tool to examine it in itself. One can only raise speculations of one kind or another, in the direction of the believer or the atheist. Everything that is said on this matter will not be worth much.”

They will say whatever they say about you, Rabbi Michi, but you have gone through and thought about everything. All the thoughts, reflections, claims and answers that appear in my mind have already appeared in your various writings. I don't know if you are similar to the Rambam, and I certainly don't resemble the Rabbad, and yet what the Rabbad said about the Rambam can be said about you: “He did a great job in his assembly” .It is likely that you can be surprised, but whoever tries to surprise you will have to work hard. I have not bothered to be convinced by the evidence to this day – and as you see my arguments are with me – but you also know my arguments.
Thank you, Rabbi Michi, for preempting the words of those who disagree with yours, but I can only understand why you are nevertheless convinced where I did not think I should be convinced.

Hello.
When the Rabbi wrote: “And here, surprisingly, now comes the atheist and as an alternative to the religious “teapot” (which is not a teapot at all) invents a multitude of teapots that no one has seen and cannot see (because they are small, transparent, etc.). And this is his attack on believers! After all, he himself is the greatest believer in nonsense that has no indication that they exist, only because it is impossible to refute the claim of their existence.”
What does the Rabbi mean by his comparison of a multitude of teapots, which have no indication that they exist, only because it is impossible to refute the claim of their existence? To the precise laws?
Thank you

It seems to me that he meant the invention of many universes (teapots) that existed before the creation of our universe
and they constituted the endless trials that ultimately resulted in our universe being created as one of the infinite dice rolls
which constitutes the six six that can appear after so many rolls

Indeed. Not necessarily were, but still exist.

Hello,

What do you think about the “pink unicorn” ?
This is a kind of improved version of Russell's (poor) argument. But it is worth considering in this case.

Except for the fact that there are people/nations who claim (seriously) that they have seen God or that He has revealed Himself to them, and others do not.

I don't know what you're getting at (I know something similar about the ontological view. Not related here). By the way, Russell's arguments are not generally poor.