Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

It would still be a significant piece of evidence in favor or your narrative.

So, you won't make the argument I just said you would?

That's correct, I am arguing facts and you're arguing semantics.

Prove it.

Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. You believe the universe is the way it is minus any planning, engineering or design. I believe it was created for the purpose of human life. Without reference to whether they had to be as they are or whether they could be otherwise it is a fact they are with a mindboggling exactitude of what they need to be just for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. It's neither a fact they could be otherwise or they had to be as they are, it is a fact for us to exist they need to be nearly precisely what they are.

On this point, you have been shown to be wrong - by Apo.

You don't have to tell me that in your opinion, its meaningless, that's a given. I believe it would have significant evidentiary value to impartial people who are neither sold on theism or sold on atheism. You're rebuttal there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are would be a pathetically weak before a group of impartial people especially as I went through each constant and provided facts of how razor thin with in a life permitting range each one is.

Except, your argument failed on multiple levels. You did not provide any range, you equivocate between life and life as we know it and the variation you proposed was far from razor thin.

I'll let the fact they fall within such a narrow range that would allow life to speak for itself without reference to whether they could be otherwise. I think your counter argument only persuades people who like yourself are totally convinced God doesn't exist.

You keep talking about this "narrow range" - what narrow range? You are yet to produce evidence of any.

That's a bit too esoteric for me. I have no idea if only your parents met would you subsequently be born and only under that circumstance.

And the same way, you have no idea about life and therefore not qualified to draw conclusions of design.

If something isn't designed, planned or engineered to be in a specific configuration yet such a specific configuration occurs we can either believe it was by the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable or it was in fact planned and designed.

False dichotomy. The third and most likely option is that its the necessary consequence of the nature existence.

The debate about theism and atheism isn't a one way street as most atheists characterize it, that the so called burden of evidence rests with theists only. Atheists make a claim also, that the universe and our existence all occurred minus any plan or design. That the conditions that allowed our existence occurred was not by plan, but by fortuitous happenstance.

That is not the claim. Its surprising how you can remain so uneducated about atheism even after such a long debate.

Of course you'll object and say it wasn't by chance it was because the laws of physics produced the result we observe but according to atheists the laws of physics weren't engineered or designed to be as they are either.

So you do get it? Then where does all this ignorance come from?

For the record, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. It is the presence of intelligence behind the laws of nature that would be the positive claim - not the absence of it. The premise that is agreed upon is that the universe works in a particular way - with regards to laws of physics or logic. You are the one adding something extra - an intelligence with an intention - thus the burden of proof lies upon you.

Except for the unaccountable fact they happen to be within extremely fine tolerance for planets, stars and life to exist.

Already accounted for by necessity.

People can weigh that fact for themselves and decide if that is evidence of design or whether they think your objections hold water.

People have weighed the facts - and concluded that there your arguments hold no water. That is why the anthropic principle is classified as a fallacy.

There is the force or gravity which is a varible depending on the amount of mass. There is also the constant of gravity.

The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant.

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

G = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ \mbox{m}^3 \ \mbox{kg}^{-1} \ \mbox{s}^{-2} = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ {\rm N}\, {\rm (m/kg)^2}

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

This is the value Martin Rees was referring to, not the relative strength of gravity depending on mass. What Ree's is pointing out is the exactitude the gravitational constant is in order for planets, stars and galaxies to form. By the way I used Ree's as a source because he is highly esteemed in scientific circles and he is also an atheist. The difference between 10exp30 to 10exp36 is nearly infintesmal yet the impact is huge.

No wonder you keep repeating the same old refuted arguments - you can't even remember the ones you made. And, apparently, lack the capacity to scroll up half an inch to read it again. And fail to read what you are obviously copying and pasting.

You did not talk about the gravitational constant, you talked about the force of gravity. Also, the figure of 10^36 is nowhere to be found in the data you pasted. And finally, the difference between 10^36 and 10^30 is infinitesimal? The variation of 99.9999% is insignificant? Pray tell, then, what percentage do you call significant?

I am putting forth a fact (not theory not speculation) that the constant G (among several others) falls in an incredibly narrow range for life to exist or even for the stars and planets to exist.

Then put forward the fact of what that narrow range happens to be. Only then will we judge if that is narrow or not. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

I haven't rejected the notion it could be other wise or accepted the notion it had to be as it is as neither of those possibilites are a fact.

One of them is a fact. The fact that you don't know it, doesn't change the fact.

If the're not fact they don't exist. Your only counter is we don't know if they had to be as they are or whether there values came by happenstance.

On the contrary, given that most of those constant are inherent to the universe, in all probability, they are what they had to be.

In other words your counter argument is a plea to ignorance. To me it makes no difference, if they had to be as they are, thats what we expect from something that was designed.

If they are what they had to be, then the concept of design is ridiculous.

Why does a printed circuit board fall in a extremely narrow range to perform a certain function...because it was designed or alternatively it occured by happenstance.

We do not live in a circuit board.