Strong and Weak Arguments

[Whateverist]

I would like to hear what AF members think are the weakest arguments supporting their position and strongest arguments against it. Believers are invited to admit the skeptical objections they find most reasonable (even if they do not sway you) and critique the worst apologetics. Skeptics are invited to admit which apologetic seems most reasonable (even if they do not sway you) and critique the least valid objections. So I’ll start…

IMO the weakest apologetic is Pascal’s wager since it relies entirely on a specific cultural context.

IMO the most reasonable objection comes from Kant. He proposes that ‘being’ is not a proper predicate and therefore the saying that God’s essence is the same as His existence is problematic.

Among the weakest for: Theodicy, that may cast doubt that there is a loving God, but doesn't really make a case for atheism

Strongest against: Fine tuning, contrary to what some deniers say, several physical constants and combinations thereof cannot be changed by more than a tiny fraction without wreaking havoc on our universe's ability to support life.

But Alex don't you think this is somewhat analogous to the lucky puddle which just happens to find itself in a hole that fits it to a T?  I mean here we are sentient life looking around and remarking how conditions fit us to a T.