It's true that gravity will not change behavior, but that is a philosophical truth rather than a scientific one. Science tells us about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but it does not tell us about whether the future will be like the present.

I think we've missed each other's points somewhere as I'm not sure how this connects to what I said exactly. I can't see how gravity's nature is philosophical either, it behaves as it does regardless. As for the future, science does various predictions, like weather patterns and so on but I assume this wasn't what you were getting at.

That's like asking if matter exists, are there any limits to the forms that matter can take? Of course it's possible for matter to take the form of a shark riding a unicorn, but contrary to memes, that doesn't invalidate anyone's argument.

I can kind of see how it might seem that way but the two are very different fundamentally. There is no previous model for unicorn riding sharks, so therefore there is no necessity to consider them. On the other hand we do have a model for the existence of a universe so it's not illogical to consider other universes. Again mutliverse theory is not 'concrete' but it makes sense under certain conditions and we do have a model (our universe) to suggest its possibility.

The article explains the problems better than I can, but one problem he has is if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

That's a good example of one of the logic games I have seen since I started paying attention to these debates. The answer is really simple, the universe we exist in is the only one that can support us because otherwise we wouldn't exist. It's really that simple.

To give you an opposite example. There is more chance of you being born a fish than a human. But you were born a human so it doesn't matter. The fact that you could have been born a fish doesn't collapse your reality. Even if the chance of a universe being created with our laws is absolutely miniscule, with absence of time even a 0.0000000001% chance of something happening will occur.

Logical necessity does not mean possible solution.

It's due to logical necessity that theories like the multiverse are being considered. This is really indisputable but I think the process is what people are getting confused by. There needs to be an explanation for the particular laws that govern our universe, if they were changed even by a miniscule amount the universe would not exist. The answer could be God but there is no previous model to suggest so. Every previous mechanism we understand point to natural causation. Hence the various theories, there is a logical necessity to fill in the gap.

Science and faith have never been in conflict with each other.

I guess this is nitpicking but it's worth pointing out the lengths that people went to to dismiss the concept of a universe that does not revolve around Earth. Not to mention recent Creationists who claim the Earth is six thousand years old and that people lived alongside dinosaurs. I would say faith rather than religion does not conflict with science.

Trust is rational because it relies on using reason to interpret evidence. Science tells us much about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but it tells us nothing about whether or not we should trust God. Faith always needs an explanation, otherwise there would be no reason why anyone had faith, so apologetics in this area are there to combat this recent illogical misconception of it.

This is why I feel they are wasting their time, since trust and reason break down under the conditions you propose. If we had the time this would end up a huge paragraph, the Bible is full of inconsistencies that should rightly break trust. Not to mention the fact that you cannot observe, test, or reproduce any of the claims the Bible makes. For example, just a simple commandment like "Thou shalt not kill." This seems very finite and clear, so finite that by rights any Judeo-Christian should be vegetarian. Yet within the same Bible God encourages various acts of murder, when he isn't committing them himself. Not to mention weird guidelines that instruct to stone people for any passing reason:

[i]Numbers 15:32-36
New International Version (NIV)
The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death

32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.[/i]

[i]Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.[/i]