that is one incoherent non sequitor / strawman. Your nonsense about a limited Creator is the thought of a troll or a moron. Just because you can't conceive of it happening a different way... does not mean it could not have been different. For instance one very simple way would be a garden of eden with no constants. Another might be a place where we the fundamentals are set up so we are aware our choices make multiple universes each time we choose. Who knows maybe that is what it is like to be God. He chooses like in Hawking's speculation about top down cosmology and then he collapses all the other universes at once.
my argument is more that if there is only one universe we can rule out random chance... therefore a Tuner looks like a very strong possibility. if the odds against it being conducive to human life... was one in 500 trillion... would you say hey that is so unlikely that we got here luck... it must have been created. do you appreciate the difference between one in 500 trillion and one in 10 to the 230? or one in 10 to the 10 to the 123?
Here's a thought for both sides of the argument... The MOST HONEST answer humanity currently has to the question "Is there a God?" is: "I don't (for a fact) know." But this is the difference. For believers, that is called "Doubt". Doubt is addressed by the religious with the concept of "Faith". For Atheists (so-called), Doubt is acually called Agnosticism. It effectively eliminates the concept of Atheism. So while someone who believes in God can answer "I don't (for a fact) know" and still maintain their belief, the same answer makes an atheist (so-called) non-existent. For those who say "I know for a FACT there is no God", there are many other questions for you to answer regarding the nature of the Universes before answering one of the oldest questions of humanity definitively. Otherwise, your answer is simply a dishonest one.
You should probably stick to discussions on roofing campers and pickup trucks. You don't seem to know much about anything else.
rewrite --- it should have said.. if the odds against it being conducive to human life... were one in 500 trillion... would you say that is so unlikely that we must have gotten lucky or we could not be that lucky were must have been created. now what would you say if it were one in 10 to the 200 or 500? how about 10 to the 10 to the 123.
....or some other simple fairy tale. For instance Goldilocks...'just right'...even better. Yeah that'll work. The old - enough self-important anthropocentric hubris to get so messed up you start thinking you could influence a universe..... and even do so billions of years before anyone existed in it . The word God does not spell the words fermionic field, so obviously not like Hawking's explains. Ugh. So to sum it all up let's see , you are first fanciful, second incoherent and third self-contradictory. True to form.
I would say....Chicken feed! How about one in 10 to the 2,685,000 odds against you would be born. Basically zero odds of you being alive. And yet those impossible odds are overcome by completely explainable natural events, and have been 7 billion other times as well. Your argument from incredulity is a fallacy.