Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[RoadRunner79]

---

How many universes have you seen, again?  

In any case, "I think it's reasonable to infer that it was fixed" is not a rational inference, nor is "fixing" something that only a designer can do.  Points for being consistently less than rational, I guess?

In order for my conclusion to be irrational, you would need to provide alternative reasons for landing the winning ticket despite the odds having enough zeros as the molecules in the universe (or half that, of halve that again--I don't care--it does not matter). If you say, "I don't know" then my reasoning that it was fixed is better than that. At least I have math providing good evidence that it was.

---

Even if the allowable ranges of the values of constants that lead to a universe with structure (atoms, stars etc.) is very small, the fact that these constants need to have very specific values does not make it unlikely for them to have these values. You are ascribing a low probability to the universe having its specific constants without justification. It may be that certain values of constants are more likely than others. Or, what if the range of possible constants for all possible universes is quite small to begin with? It's not necessarily true that the constants can range from minus to plus infinity.

The fine-tuning argument fails on the basis that it cannot establish the purported low probability of the universe acquiring its constants. For all we know the probability could be 1.

If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!

---

But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

Augustine 1700 years ago did not take the Genesis account as a literal 6 days. If you think you are making a point, it is a tired-out one with no real meaning. Congrats.

---

The other thing in your example, is that you are only giving one drawing (although with incredibly high odds against).  I think that it can be granted that improbable things can and do occur.  However the way that statistics works, is that they do not happen consistently.  Now in the next drawing, you switch it up, and again, you get the exact combination required.  This happens again and again.   At some point, it's reasonable to expect that something is up. 

I would also agree, that we could be incorrect or mistaken on some of the values cited for fine tuning.  We could be wrong on some of our assumptions, or perhaps it couldn't be any other way. We could be wrong on a number of things, where science is concerned.  However; I think that it is better to go with reason and evidence rather than an argument from ignorance (again, this isn't just one instance we are talking about) . Sometimes it seems that so called skeptics; appear to be stacking the deck; which makes it difficult to take claims of skepticism seriously.

Also, the debate on the 6 days of creation goes back much farther than Augustine, back to ancient Jewish thinkers.