Multiverse and the Physico-Theological Argument

From the Physico-Theological Notebook

“The assumption that there have been countless previous attempts at universes with different laws of physics is a very problematic assumption. According to this proposal, countless universes different from ours should exist simultaneously with us (since the number of possible systems of laws is infinite), each of which has different laws of physics. None of us has seen them, and probably cannot see them. This is an ad hoc invention just to escape the physico-theological straits. It is really a case of Russell's celestial teapot (see above at the end of Chapter 4), but this time he turns the atheist's star. He invents teapots that no one has seen, just to escape the need to look for a cause for the universe.”

I'll try to explain why I really didn't understand the move
We see a very rare universe, from our life experience if something rare happened then either something happened many times until it succeeded (there is a genre of videos of cases with extremely low probability that are just coincidences and not staged) or someone directed the event. Therefore, there is equivalence between the explanations and the rare phenomenon that we see and there is no intuition or hint that both are equally possible. (Creator or multiverse)
The claim that the multiverse is an attempt at evasion and invention presupposes that there is a creator and therefore the multiverse, unlike the creator, does not solve the riddle of rarity and then there is no doubt that it is unnecessary.
But if we solve the problem of rarity using a multiverse explanation, suddenly a creator will be an unnecessary invention (because it is already a given that the multiverse caused rarity), without evidence (because he did not create the world), and he will only be a means of escaping the multiverse claim.

In short, there is symmetry between the proposals, and choosing the Creator is the desired assumption. You know that a multiverse is not necessary because God has already solved the problem, and God solved the problem because a multiverse is not true.

You only gave one paragraph. Read around there. Everything is explained.

Until the title of the next chapter, it seems like a conceptual continuation of that paragraph, just more examples. The author insults the universes by saying that they are transparent, or that the atheist creates things for nothing (one by one, the creator is also the product of a conclusion from complexity, and he is also not attainable by us). But in any case, my position is not “surely there are many universes” but “there is no more reasonable option between a creator and a multiverse”, the author does not show why a creator is more reasonable than many attempts.
The general spirit of the author assumes that something is complex even if it has a designer, but let's say all miracle stories (after filtering out the false ones from their structure) are another example of special things that happened from many attempts, unlike the factory example.
Each case of a complex thing should be judged on its own merits, and because we do not know much about the creation of universes, no opinion is more successful than the other

And because the multiverse is a vague and not fully explained argument, just like a creator with an invisible will
The reason the creator is perceived as the most likely thing is precisely because of the teapot. In the parable, the teapot is popular because they were educated about it, and to challenge it in their opinion requires proof of the universe itself
Here it is the same, God is the starting point and the multiverse requires proof. But if they were to create some religion about the multiverse, of course they would write in their notebooks about the transparent God, who is not necessary for any explanation, the invented one, who was only invented to undermine their religion, and so on. From the symmetry it follows that any position taken is not justified and could also be the second position

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time with reading comprehension at this level. All the best.

Here is an attempt at explanation and summarization, sorry for the previous wording.

The position is not “there is definitely a multiverse” but “it is impossible to decide between an intelligent creator and a multiverse”

The reason why the intelligent creator is perceived as the more likely thing is precisely because of the teapot. In Russell's parable, the teapot is popular because they were educated about it, and to challenge it you need proof.
Here it is the same, God is the starting point and the multiverse requires proof. But if they were to invent some religion about the multiverse, of course they would write in their notebooks about the transparent God, who is not needed for any explanation, the invented one, who was only invented to undermine their religion, and so on. From symmetry it follows that any position taken (intelligent creator or multiverse) is not justified and could also be the other position.