Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Drew_2013]

For your position to hold any water you have to prove two things:
1. Those constants could've been something other that what they are, i.e. they are tunable.
2. Any other type of life-form cannot possibly exist if those conditions are not met.

No, it doesn't make any difference whether there tunable or not. Even if for some unknown reason they had to be as they are its still just as astonishing that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in the narrow range to support life. I'm only concerned about the life forms we do know of not fantasy ones.

Secondly It doesn't matter to me whether you think the arguments I make hold water. I assume none of them will.

And since it's a fact that we don't have any knowledge of possibility of life in other places of this universe or another, there is no basis to assume that there is anything special regarding the so called conditions of life.

We don't have to consider knowledge we don't have. At this point we know of life on earth alone and for the only life we know of to exist the universe has to fallen in an incredibly narrow range of characteristics. We don't have to consider facts not in evidence.

Here are some facts for you. Life, as we know it, is impossible to sustain in all but a tiny portion of the universe. Of that tiny portion, it is known to exist in an even tinier portion. Assuming Earth to consist of everything from its core to upper atmosphere, we know that life is possible only in a thin shell around its surface and even there in specific areas. Given the astronomically low occurrence of life in universe, the reasonable conclusion is that its existence was not the product of purposeful design.

So if life was teeming everywhere you'd say it must be by design?

In face of this evidence, you continue to insist that even this extremely miniscule success could not have been achieved without intent. So, this time, the burden of proof is on you. You bear the responsibility to show that this extremely low occurrence of life was still the intent and purpose behind the universe. I've even given you a way to prove it.

The only burden on me is to make a reasonable case for what I believe. Its not my burden to pretend I can persuade a dyed in the wool atheist.

First of all, I don't know of any atheists who see human existence as a fluke of nature any more than they see the earth revolving around the sun as a fluke of nature. Both are necessary and inevitable consequences of mechanistic processes at work (that's my belief, other atheists may believe differently).

But you don't believe those laws of nature were by design correct? There was according to atheists no engineer who designed the laws of physics to produce a specific result, true? You don't believe the universe was intentionally engineered to support galaxies, stars or planets do you? You don't think the universe or mechanistic processses cared whether humans existed right? All the conditions and characteristics necessary for humans to exist didn't according to atheists come about by plan. If a extremely specific result occurs minus any design or planning then the end result is by happenstance. Even if you counter propose just as a hypothetical that for some reason if a universe exists it has to take on the characteristics that support life as we know it how it is any less bizarre it has to take on characteristics in a mindboggling narrow range of parameters that support life when supposedly the mindless forces that caused the universe never intended human life and don't care if human life results?

And lastly, did you really think I would not notice that you fail to address the actual argument that you are apparently replying to? I can only assume from this lame attempt at diversion that you have no counter-argument to the fact that theistic societies lead to segregated class based rights and privileges.

No I just had no comment about it.

I don't see how I can make your failure to apply logic any more transparent? I gave you the name of your logical fallacy, an example and detailed description of how you apply it.

I'd like to hear in your own words how you describe it and think it applies to our discussion.

From the fact of their existence itself.

An existence according to atheists that was never intended to occur. Again the point which you conceded is that we can't infer any rights from the basis of naturalism.

Btw what makes you think at some point humans aren't doomed to perish either individually or collectively at some point?

Exactly my point. Any right conferred by any other being would hold no value - even of that being is your god.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If human existence is the result of a transcendent Creator who designed the universe for the purpose of humans existing, then we have an external reason beyond our own opinion from a higher source as a reason to believe we have certain inalienable rights. I know you're going to respond with your reasons for disagreeing but I doubt we will cover any new ground.

---

What's more to the point, there are millions and millions of ways to snuff out life, or to prevent it from occuring altogether. The reality is that these facts do not support the notion that the universe is finely tuned for life. However, there is plenty of evidence to support the thesis that life is finely tuned to the universe, having evolved in it, being a product of it.

The only evidence you can be referring is life on earth a planet with a myriad of conditions that allow life in the first place. From the small sample of planets around us with no life it would appear life can only occur under certain circumstances.