Atheism destroyed with a question

[Sword of Christ]

The 'math' used to determine this is based on nothing but assumptions.

The assumption/suggestion basically is that the universe was purposefully made for life, and by extension humanity\beings like humans from the beginning. Hence the quite extreme and alarming levels of fine tuning and all the complex processes of development that we can actually observe. This also ties in with the more traditional philosophical arguments of design, first cause, the unmoved mover and so on.

You don't necessarily have to tie it in with the Bible it will work with the Quran or any other claimed revelation but what matters is that is compatible. Not only compatible but would actually hint towards this basis of reality. I know this isn't not currently popular in scientific circles but the fine tuning argument is one of the strong points against atheism. I think there are stronger points but this is quite good. And of course it's fully compatible with evolution which is important. All these Young Earthers and whatever really ought to see this argument as it should address their concerns.

But we don't know any of those things for sure with our sample size of one universe.

You will just have to go on what you see and what you think it would likely imply, the obvious implication is that you're looking at something that was made by some kind of conscious intelligence such as our own albeit on a far greater level/scale. So the facts will fit the faith without any real conflict. They don't prove the faith but it's not bad, the argument worked a thousand years ago and it still works in light of what we now know.

On the contrary side, the 'flatness' of the universe supports the notion that the values of the physical constants may be quite constrained by physical necessity of the universe having a net energy budget of either practically or actually zero.

God didn't use energy to create the universe that was all created with the universe which was brought into existence along with time itself. So I think this is what you would expect.

The argument that the universe's habitability is extremely unlikely is based on a thought experiment, not evidence.

You can see the complexity and fine tuning of the universe required for the formation of life, and the overall structural formation over time as an elaborate process. The process goes from chaotic simplicity to well complex form and order. So we don't have an example of a universe God didn't create to compare it to but the scientific facts are interesting enough as they are. Certainly to engineer something on this scale you would need an immense amount of fine tuning, there is no margin for error or flexibility involved in any of the parameters. The universe could have been any kind of chaotic bollocks at all if it wasn't deliberate just a monkeys on typewriters kind of thing. Yes so some planets are suitable for life and some aren't it wasn't micromanaged to that extent, as long as even a small percentage of planets can do their job then the process will follow through to fruition and ultimately here we are.