I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

Can you cite a scientific result showing that any of these characteristics could vary?  (Rees' book is a popularization, but if you can quote where he claims that they could vary and backs it up with citations, that at least would be a start.)

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? 

I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it? 
Lets try larger letters, see if that helps?

It is irrational / fallacious, to claim something is or might be true, because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence. 

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? 

You don't, I have never claimed, or even implied you do, I have no interest whatsoever in what they believe, only what science validates. Again I explained this to you already, and explained why, and explained this is an appeal to authority fallacy. Lets try large letters again:

Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, does this fact influence your decision to believe in alchemy at all? Please explain why it does, or does not, so I can  try and understand why you keep rehashing the same fallacious arguments. 

You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

You don't seem to read very well, since this is another dishonest straw man, so lets try big letters again then:

On the contrary I don't believe the multiverse hypothesis evidences anything supernatural, or any deity, and I have already stated this fact, more than once. I don't care who believes in multiverses, and I don't care what their reasons are, only what the methods of science can and has validated. 

Whilst theoretical scientific hypothesis are both essential to advance our knowledge, and no doubt fascinating and edifying in any number of ways, they are not established or accepted scientific theories, and this has also been explained already. Multiverse is an hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory. Do you understand this, and what it means?

Now Drew, do try and answer that last question without using the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again. As I have explained I cannot base belief on irrational arguments. 

We once had no natural explanation for lightning, and so people insisted it had a supernatural cause. Their reasoning like yours here was fallacious / poor, and they were wrong. 

Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over.