Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Esquilax]

Now I know that you do not read the arguments that you make.

Nowhere in the argument there is any evidence of this "narrow" range you keep blabbering about. All the proposed variations are of high magnitude. Further, even with these high magnitude variations (indicated by words like "much larger" where figures aren't given), life would still be possible - according to Rees.

I'm curious, did you actually read his book or just thought that the preface seemed to support your argument?

Haven't you heard? He's not dealing in hypotheticals, only in things as they actually are. In essence, he's insulated himself from any form of counter argument by assuming that his every thought on the matter is absolutely correct. This is also why he keeps insisting that the atheist position is something that it's not.