I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

Argumentum ad Wikipedia Copy-N-Pasta? Seriously dude, learn how to do basic attribution.

The Wikipedia article (<--- See? Like that!) goes on to debunk everything that you stated here. Here's a selection of fun quotes for you (emphasis mine):

"Because physicists have not developed an empirically successful theory of quantum gravity, there is no known way to combine quantum mechanics, on which the standard model depends, and general relativity. Without knowledge of this more complete theory suspected to underlie the standard model, it is impossible to definitively count the number of truly independent physical constants. In some candidate theories, the number of independent physical constants may be as small as one."

"Physicist Paul Davies said: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. But the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires". He also said that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently"."

"Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the existence of multiple universes introducing a survivorship bias under the anthropic principle."

"Belief in the fine-tuned universe led to the expectation that the Large Hadron Collider would produce evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry, but by 2012 it had not produced evidence for supersymmetry at the energy scales it was able to probe."

Not surprising Paul Davis is an atheist. 

You quoted this...

"Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the existence of multiple universes introducing a survivorship bias under the anthropic principle."

I've had plenty claim erroneously that multiverse theory has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe. Most scientists are philosophically committed to naturalist explanations.

What's wrong with using sources to back up what I'm saying. Its better than a lot of folks here who quote themselves as authorities on any subject.

Its questionable who is invoking magic. Would it be more magical for a laptop to come together and assemble itself minus any plan or intent to do so? Or is it less magical if the laptop was created by intelligent autonomous beings on purpose? You won't answer the question but its obvious. It would be far more magical and unexpected if a laptop was caused by some unheard of natural process. Nothing would be more magical than if mindless natural forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, caused a universe with all the conditions to cause life to exist, caused the laws of physics we are utterly dependent on.

The reason atheists are such a minority is because you sell a fish story few believe.

Universes are not laptops. Read your Hume, he debunked this nonsense almost 300 years ago.

Boru

He's channelling his inner Paley. The reason a shiny metal pocket watch, or laptop, if Drew prefers, looks out of place in a natural setting, is precisely because all the things we know are designed, do not occur randomly in nature, that's what manmade means. However neither is anything supernatural involved. 

We can point to offices with designers, creating designs for every stage of laptops, we can point to factories creating every piece of them. Now, Drew, demonstrate that supernatural designers and creators for universes exist, or are possible, or for anything in nature please.