The problem with artificial creation (and simulation) theories is that they can generate universes of all kinds without restriction, including one that's consistent with our own in every way. I'm not sure that there could ever be a way to disprove such theories.
If theories are going to be useful, they'll have to predict something which can be confirmed with follow-up observations.
In fairness, the OP was comparing the merit of a deist creator to the merit of multiverse as an explanation of the cosmological constant.
Does the multiverse theory predict something which can be confirmed with follow-up observations or that is falsifiable in some way? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I've heard a similar criticism of simulation theories. Unless we add some more specific information to the theory, it's not really a scientific theory for that reason. How would a simulated/created universe look?
>If theories are going to be useful, they'll have to predict something which can be confirmed with follow-up observations.
If you can name something that the multiverse predicts that could be confirmed with observations (possible observations we will not be able to make in my lifetime) I would appreciate it. My current understanding is that there is nothing predictive about the multiverse theory thus my initial question.
If theories are going to be useful, they'll have to predict something which can be confirmed with follow-up observations.