That atheism is not rationally justified

[Mister Agenda]

I'll defend the position, just for the heck of it. It's not entirely drivel: if some of the quark masses were a bit higher, no stable atoms would form and everything would be a kind of uniform radiation bath with hydrogen or neutrons in it, and nothing beyond that. It would not be a universe with enough structure for a mind to emerge, or Darwinian evolution to take place.

But what are the odds of the universe being fine-tuned to be in exactly THAT state? It's ultimately an after-the-facts odds argument that it couldn't have happened the way it did without intent because the odds against are so great, but you could say the odds of any given state are unbelievably unlikely to have 'happened by chance' if you presume the natural laws could have had any values at all. That only states that can support intelligent life would have anyone wondering about the odds isn't actually an argument that those states are the ones being aimed at...you can't get there without first establishing that there IS an aim, and a post hoc explanation (looking around the universe for something you can say was the target) doesn't get you that, it can't be more than a mere assertion.

---

I wouldn't bother. Minimalist has no clue what emergent complexity is as evidenced by his "philosophical drivel" statement.

You have no clue how to defend your postiion, as evidenced by your lack of defense for it. See how that works when other people do it?