Fine Tuning

Thank you very much.
Here, for example in the video here:

From minute 5:00 to 7:00 there is a delay of 3 fixed ones, unfortunately I don't understand English so maybe the rabbi could help me with this. Of course only if I haven't crossed the line of impudence and annoyance.

I saw and there is nothing new here.
1. He talks about distances and temperatures, and explains that these can change. But the question is not about the values of physical states but about the values of constants. It is clear that different distances and different temperatures will only change the nature of living beings (meaning that in our place there will be beings with a different scale that will fit the other scales).
2. He talks about relationships between constants, and again it does not matter. It is quite clear that changing the values of the constants that will maintain the same relationship will allow the formation of beings identical to us but on a different scale. The question is about changes in values that do not maintain a relationship between them, or a change in the equations themselves (and not just different values of constants in those equations), or laws that are not equations at all.
3. He talks about constants that are determined with probability 1 by Einstein's equation. The question is who determined the equation itself. Again, his argument is within the laws and I am speaking outside of them.
4. He talks about the formation of universes with different constant values from black holes. The problem is that the black holes themselves were created from well-defined physics (=quantum and gravity) and the question of who created it.
After all, there is nothing new here. The usual nonsense.

Wow, I really thank you, Your Honor!

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I didn't understand what you explained to him in the last section 4. What difference does it make that the multiple universes come out of a physical system? After all, there are infinite universes here (let's say) and that's it, the argument fell apart from the complexity.

Absolutely not. Black holes are the product of only one special system (a quantum-gravitational system of laws), and the question of how it itself was created is like the distinction between an argument within the laws and an argument outside the laws in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7 %AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95% D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/

And is it even scientifically accepted that rehabilitations are created this way?

And in addition, if there are infinite universes that arise from quantum laws, then the subject of the physico-theological argument is the complexity of the mechanism for producing universes, and not the complexity of life in our universe, so that even a plurality of universes that arises from special laws refutes the argument from life, and leaves intact the argument from universes, a new argument.

I feel a bit like the Rabbi is using the word complexity in an unclear way.
In the Physico-Theological Notebook, the Rabbi uses the word complexity for something statistically unique.
But here suddenly the Rabbi refers to complexity in a different description. As if a complex action.

And as soon as the Rabbi uses this context, the question of God being complex and needing a component returns.

Danny, I have no idea (and I assume that in any case these are speculations and not findings). But as I explained even if they were – it doesn't matter to our case.
If you transfer the universes to monsters then the argument will be about monsters. It doesn't matter at all.

Assaf,
Why does it matter? Complexity is something that is not created without a guiding hand.