Is there something fallacious in these sentences?

[St Giordano Bruno]

Personally I have no more problems with differently tuned universes with their differing laws of physics forbidding the existence of livings things in them (dead universes in other words)  than I have with the more scientifically factual dead planets such as Venus and Mercury. So the reason why the universe appears so "miraculously" fined tuned for us is no miracle at all it is just simply because we cannot possibly exist in any of the "out of tune" ones

[Sleeper]

Ah, so multiple worlds are worlds that our world could have been, it has to do with possibility, and has nothing to do with parallel worlds? I see. Thanks for the clarification.
So assuming there are parallel worlds, in a different parallel world than ours, god may exist, and in another, he may not. Necessity and contingency applies to possible worlds but not parallel worlds then?

Is that right?

Possible worlds are worlds that our world could have been, multiple words are parallel worlds. And I don't think we can deduce anything about what does or does not exist in a parallel world, that's not what the OA posits. If god(s) exist as part of this universe, then I suppose your statement could be true. As for a god that created the multiverse, we're 0 for 1 on universes with evidence for that.

[La Dolce Vita]

If a being exists in all possible words, does that mean that he is greater in quantity?
If a being is the greatest in quantity, does it mean that he exists in all possible worlds?

And... are these questions basically the same?

I feel that there is something wrong with them, but I can't put my finger on what it is. Or maybe there isn't. Maybe you guys can help?

Worlds, not words. ;)
And the answer is no, on both, that's not a neccesity.
Also, lol at "He"
And lol at the irrelevant questions. :D

Why would it not be neccesary? Because it could be possible to exist multiple times in the same world. Also, if it's one specific being/entity that exists in multiple world then we can't talk of quantity as it's just one being ... Making the whole thing even dumber.

And no, it's not the same question.

[Sleeper]

Necessity and contingency applies to possible worlds but not parallel worlds then?

Is that right?

And necessity and contingency apply to neither. The apologist will say that they apply to possible worlds, but this argument is completely hypothetical. The ultimate in whatever we can come up with isn't necessary or contingent to any world that could have been, and certainly not to the one in which we find ourselves. It's like Vic Stenger said in his debate with Bill Craig: "Why not posit the greatest conceivable pizza?"

Also, this is another of my questions about the OA - if it's true, then wouldn't its negation also be true? If it's possible that this being does not exist, then it does not exist in all possible worlds, right? That seems a pretty necessary gap for such a hypothetical being.

[La Dolce Vita]

Ah, so multiple worlds are worlds that our world could have been, it has to do with possibility, and has nothing to do with parallel worlds? I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, "multiple worlds" is an undefined word salad that could mean essentially anything, like most theistic arguments.

So assuming there are parallel worlds, in a different parallel world than ours, god may exist, and in another, he may not. Necessity and contingency applies to possible worlds but not parallel worlds then?

Is that right?

Be very careful here. Let's go through it:

We really should use universe, as world could just as easily imply (inhabited) planet. A parallel universe would be a universe that existed parallel to ours. Of course, we do not know if such universe(s) exist so this is 100% hypothetical.

So, if in the hypothetical scenarios there are multiple universes, could 1 or more be created by "god(s)"? In plain words, unless going by the "everything is possible" logic the answer is simply "we don't know". We have never observed anything we have defined as a "creating god", therefor the possibility of such a thing is 100% unknown.

The first question you should ask to whoever is putting forth the scenario is: "Hey, WTF do you mean by god(s), please define what you are talking about". If they just mean any kind of creator I would say "yes" as we already have game designers that have created virtual universes - do these "universes" qualify as universes however? What do we mean by "universe"? And this just goes on and on ...

You see, hypothetical scenarios, with no grounding in the real world, and that are meant to project the possibility of something, are all: UTTERLY WORTHLESS. They can never inform anything at all and are completely irrelevant, not to mention nonsensical.

[St Giordano Bruno]

I have heard of so many arguments ad nauseum that this finely tuned universe is so called "evidence for the existence of God" and be like people in ancient times imagining a planet without the air as we breathe it, but we know today such planets do in fact exist. They have argued over the centuries "there must be a God, look at the beauty and complexity of this "world", with all its water and rivers and life giving rains, it could have been all a frozen alpine wasteland or all desert, but is it just right for us, so there must be a God",  totally obvious there is a proliferation of such dead "worlds" ancient astronomers deem as just planets such as the surface of Mars.  It never occurred to them that this special "world" they called earth is just another planet that orbits the sun and not a special divinely created world in its privileged centre of the universe.

 The argument for the existence of God got a lot flimsier when we did in fact discover  there were such worlds and the Earth is not at the privileged centre of the universe after all.  And dead universes without heavy matter, a universe with just pure energy, a universe with none of the necessary elements for life such as oxygen and carbon. In fact nature could well create every possible conceivable physical combination such is it did to create every possible type of rocky planet to create earth like planets out of natural happenstance.  If scientists discover conclusive evidence that dead universes exist, just as we already know dead planets exist theologians will just have to find another gap for God, but their argument for the existence of God would be flimsier than ever.