This it what gives the game away, you know.
For anything else not empirically observable (even if observable in principle, but not yet in practice), they yammer about ECREE and falsifiability.
But when it comes to intensely belabored models whose primary purpose and function seems to be to eliminate the necessity for God, it suddenly becomes "you stupid fundies are too dumb to understand the math" and "the math is so beautiful, so elegant that there *must* be something to it. And besides, this is *science*TM"
...even though falsifiability, experiments, and controls are the sine qua non of the scientific method, and are lacking from these theories. Now, it is true that the theories are winnowed such that any that give false predictions are eliminated: but the practitioners seem to make the mistake that any remaining theories are not sold as "provisional" or "tenable" but as "Look! We've disproved God!"
In addition, the subtle mistake of the multiverse models is that the governing laws which are held to lead to spontaneous pair creation, etc., are themselves inferences from THIS universe: and the very ansatz of multiverse theory is that the constants, laws, and parameters are different. Why is it that the few laws concerning vacuum fluctuations are held as invariants, when everything else is up for grabs?
Cheers! QED.
These "theories" can be referred to as such only insofar as they are mathematical constructs. Otherwise, in order to be physical theories, they must be supported by evidence.
"In addition, the subtle mistake of the multiverse models is that the governing laws which are held to lead to spontaneous pair creation, etc., are themselves inferences from THIS universe:"
The fundamental governing law for anything to exist as an instantiation of a real, or true object can be stated mathematically as A=A. The equivalent verbally is, "a thing is what it is." In science it is stated as the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy is what underlies the understanding of pair creation. The evidence that supports the understanding are observables, not inference. The law of conservation of energy must hold in any and every universe. Otherwise a thing would arbitrarily not be what it is and then, or at the same time, or any arbitrary time, arbitrarily be what it is.
Note that spontaneous pair creation leaves no net energy gain, or loss in this universe and likewise none in the universe the pair arose from. Nevertheless, the two worlds are aware of each other, because of the interaction.
"God is by definition outside of ALL nature and therefore not an extensive property of any posited verse."
Who defined this god and why should anyone concern themselves with such a conjured up being? Notice that a measure of an extensive property is a quantification of an amount of energy and would not apply to a sentient rational being. Sentience and rational capacity are not extensive properties of a being, they are intrinsic properties of a system. The intrinsic properties of this system, referred to as this universe, the one that arose out of the vacuum, and those intrinsic properties are sufficient to allow for individual singular and unique instantiations of sentient rational beings to arise out of this universe. In fact one of those beings in particular, identified Himself as having been an instantiation of Himself, before there was an instantiation of this world itself.