"If we are going to permit the extravagance of a multiverse, so the argument runs, we might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and allow a God."
His response is not completely logical...
"People who think that have not had their consciousness raised by natural selection. The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain."
Dawkins’ main argument against God being responsible for the fine tuning of our universe is that a being capable of tuning our universe is, Himself, far too complex to have come into existence. However, we don’t say that God ever came into existence, but that He has always existed. Evolutionists are blinded by the assumption that simple things become complex, or that complex things are assembled from simpler things. But they’re only simple in comparison to the whole. Even an atom and the forces which bind it together is incredibly complex. It actually makes more sense that a complex being is responsible for the design of simpler things. But in any case, God is not material and is subject to different laws, and so Dawkins cannot even say that the probability of something spiritually complex coming into existence is small. If Dawkins posits that other universes may exist then there is a far greater probability, according to Dawkins’ own science, that there is a God; because other universes subject to different laws may produce something phenomenally more complex than man... God Himself. Of course, according to the Christian faith, I say again, God never came into existence at all, but has always existed.
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)