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

[SteveII]

Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the expressed reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.

'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. [1] You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.

I was wrong about the multiverse. I said as much a few posts back.

1. It seems like you are just throwing up an objection and hoping that it somehow supports necessity or that it somehow limits chance. Far from "we don't know", Dawkins in The God Delusion, agrees with Martin Rees that the constants to not appear to be necessarily so (I can find the exact page when I get home later). Apparently, the laws of physics can handle a wide ranges of values. Dawkins hangs his hat on chance. He says that the multiverse can generate enough tries to get the outcome we see. Since I can't argue with your "we don't know", I have chosen to argue against the current mainstream beliefs about how things are.