Responding to physicist Sean Carroll's lecture (continued from Monday) 
He goes on talking about how science gives scientific answers and religion doesn't. why shout it? it;s not science, but this is all under the mistaken assumption that God is necessary beings necessary to expatiate the world rather than necessary to himself.
He turns to the origin of the universe, God is said to have created the whole universe at once, while science shows BB is not the beginning. He continues to assert that science gives plausible theories and belief in God does not. He asserts the universe could be eternal but I've ample reasons in scientific literature not to accept that. We don't have to think of the BB as the moment of creation nor do we have to think of creation as coming in one moment. The notion of eternal universe comes with multiverse but that is never going to be proven.
He thinks that streaking explanations back infinitely in time really explains the whole
"We don't need God to Explain the Oregon of the universe."
He asserts that "we should judge God by the same standards that we judge other theories."
why should we do that? God is not just another theory he;s not a scientific theory, The point of belief in God is not merely to explain the universe.
He says the best argument on the empirical basis is fine tuning so of course he asserts that it;s not sensible to ask the question--we just happen to be it why wonder about it? He does admit sounds like a cop out. if course he offers an-alternative to asking the question in that other kinds of life could exist and so the parameters wouldn't be that tailored just for us. then he argues the multiverse
He explores possibility that life is a lot more generic than we think it is: meaning the parameters would not need to be that fine turned to get life, He asserts that no one on either side knows the full extent of variables to decide the issue
then he explores multiverse using Bayes [the illusion of technique he gives the impression that math is disproving God in reality its just showing off nothing,]
He doesn't point out that belief in MV is belief in something not empirically demonstrated.
Gives the impression that proving multiverse disproves God, he does not say that, it doesn't it only disproves some God argument, if it does that.
MV is not a theory but is the consequence of other theories that;s supposed to make it more real
He us answering quote from Swinburne who says MV asserts Trillions of worlds just to assert a couple of factors in our world. Carroll says you don't fault theories because thy entail lots of things in them.
He asserts we judge plausibility of MV by plausibility of inflation. which totally accepted idea. even though he;s admitted that;s not proven.
No matter how plausible no matter how low the probability of MV it;s still belief in non empirical theory which flys in the face of all atheists argue for. It's a Trumpanity, betrayal of their most sacred principle to support their overall cause.. See my defense of Fine tuning argument. (see also my answers on Multiverse).
Futhermore, the best mechanism for multiverses that last, actually requires fine-tuning itself. The chaotic inflationary model - which seeks to avoid fine-tuning by positing that the initial conditions vary at random over the superspace of the Higgs fields - also fine-tunes its parameters, as Earman has pointed out: "The inflationary model can succeed only by fine-tuning its parameters, and even then, relative to some natural measures on initial conditions, it may also have to fine-tune its initial conditions for inflation to work."
co-author in inflationary theoryPhysicist Paul Steinhardt agrees:“The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."
Now Carroll wants to do Bayes on God. (Bayes completeness theorem, pronounced Baze).
"Is God Best Explanation for Data we see?" As with Bayes he is going to use this to set the prior for God. The way Bayes works is first one advances a prior probability that can be a guess or based upon anything we know. Then one takes further soundings as new info come in, Like a gunner finding his range by continually firing over and under the target,
He admits if God exists we should see life. if God exists then life should exist
Carroll: "Data other than life get God into trouble as a hypothesis entrap of early universe did not need to be so low for life to exist, so universe not what we would imagine if God is there." He's playing off Gods 'interest" against random occurrences in fomentation of entropy
That's a foolish prediction low entropy is not essential to life that doesn't mean there;s no fine tuning it just means all factors are not part of FT. See my article answering Bayes. 
At end he plays off sin and degradation against expectations of the divine no reference to the fall
He appeals to Multiverse to answer the one argument or God he admits is good and can't be disproved that is Fine Tuning. He also admits the Multiverse cant be proved. So the only answer he has to the one God argent that can't be disproved can;t be proven. One would think that he would at least admit to a draw on God's existence. But no he is willing too accept a lesser standard than empirical, which is an absolute contradiction to what most atheists say.
That is no different than me putting faith in God to fill the gaps the evidence and logic don''t cover as long I have some basis in the evidence and logic to extend faith from.
Sean Carroll, "God is not a Good Theory." Video You Tube (Published on Jun 5, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI (accessed 5/10/19)
from 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
this half starts at at [21:56]
 The Bible makes it sound like creation was instant but that need not be the case, ?The Beginning" could be a process that took time or "the heavens and the earth" might refer only to our space/time which is emergent in an instant from big bag. God ca do a lot of things in eternity.
Adrian Cho, "Stphen Hawkimg's (almost) last Paper; Pitting an edge to the beginning of the universe." Science (May. 2, 2018 ) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe (accessed 5/12/19 )
Cho says, "Borrowing a concept from string theory, Hawking and Hertog argue that there is no eternal inflation and only one universe. But what they’re driving at is something even more basic: They’re claiming that our universe never had a singular moment of creation."
an older article:
Staff . "Mathematics of Eternity prove The universe must have had a beginning" MIT Technology Review, (Apr 24, 2012)
Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way. They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.John Earman. Bangs, Crunches, Wimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995., p. 156) So rather than avoid fine-tuning, the multiverse pushes it up a level.
 John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15. Horgan interviews Steinhardt.
 JLH "Bayes Thorium and probability of God, no Dice." The Religious A Proiori (no date)
Index of my articles on Bayes