[mdorazio]

I think in this context it means that adding a deity into the explanation is adding an unnecessary extra element where none is needed. Thus the explanation is less "frugal" than one where we assume a multiverse without any creator(s).

[glenstein]

>I think in this context it means that adding a deity into the explanation is adding an unnecessary extra element where none is needed.

I want to reiterate that I think the side you are arguing for is ultimately the "right" one, but I'm not sure I buy this argument.

Sometimes parsimony is having a fundamental thing that other things "reduce" to, that other things are explained in terms of. Someone intent on adding a deity can insist that it's not merely one extra thing among a dozen things. Instead, it is the one fundamental thing that gives rise to the dozen things. And therefore is more parsimonous.

I wonder if the right thing to do here is bite the bullet and admit that, yes, such a thing would be simpler, but you merely think you have a simpler thing when really you have smoke and mirrors.

[incompatible]

The difficulty for any theory is explaining why anything exists at all, i.e., if there's no space and no time, isn't that a stable state? Without time, how could anything ever happen?

If a multiverse theory could give a way to get a universe out of nothing, it would be a lot more elegant than a deity theory. The deity theory after all is incomplete, it just supposes that our universe is embedded inside some sort of "outer" universe where deities live, but that outer universe also has to be created somehow.