Atheists, does it faze you in the least that scientifically, the universe appears to be fine tuned?

In other words, the values of universal constants are so mind bogglingly exact, and that with the slightest difference in values among many of them, life would not be possible anywhere in the universe?? We aren't talking about lottery odds here, we are talking about 1 part in 10^120. The value of the... show more In other words, the values of universal constants are so mind bogglingly exact, and that with the slightest difference in values among many of them, life would not be possible anywhere in the universe??

We aren't talking about lottery odds here, we are talking about 1 part in 10^120. The value of the cosmological constant alone is one part in 10^60, comparable to you throwing up 150 coins in the air simultaneously, calling heads or tails, and getting them ALL at once

And compound that with the staggering odds of life developing from inanimate matter by itself (even over hundreds of millions of years) and you come up with a number so high that it is literally impossible in a mathematical sense

How can you reject the idea of a god given such unbelievable odds?
Update: Atheist scientists do not dispute these constant values or their significances either. I watched an hour long discussion on it between Dawkins and nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg
Update 2: Dreamstuff: Lol, nice cut and paste (obviously you have alot of those neatly stored and readily available on your PC) but it falls short of course, since there is absolutely ZERO evidence for multiple universes, much less the 10^60 or so required to dilute the odds. Nice try though
Update 3: Anyone bringing up other solar systems or "unstable planets" is way off the mark here
Update 4: Muhammed: Okay, show me one shred of evidence that Rees has for multiple universes since one has never been observed. That is completely theoretical, and may remain that way since anything "outside" our universe is pretty much beyond observation
Update 5: Samantha: Why don't you tell me which term is biased?
Update 6: Meghan: Yes, that could be a point, but we don't know of any possible life that can form w/o carbon
Update 7: I've seen Dreamstuff's sources before and they are entirely false, not to mention they are for the weak anthropic principal, not the strong lol. In other words, it is an completely irrelevant argument. Also, as I said, it is based on what-ifs, with no evidence, such as multiple universes, and opinion (why... show more I've seen Dreamstuff's sources before and they are entirely false, not to mention they are for the weak anthropic principal, not the strong lol. In other words, it is an completely irrelevant argument. Also, as I said, it is based on what-ifs, with no evidence, such as multiple universes, and opinion (why would God do this...yada yada)
Update 8: Dreamstuff is addressing a different argument "Carter defined two forms of the Anthropic Principle, a "weak" one which referred only to anthropic selection of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and a "strong" form which addressed the values of the fundamental constants of... show more Dreamstuff is addressing a different argument

"Carter defined two forms of the Anthropic Principle, a "weak" one which referred only to anthropic selection of privileged spacetime locations in the universe, and a "strong" form which addressed the values of the fundamental constants of physics"
Update 9: Goddess & Her little Dog: Lol, that is a pretty pathetic and irrelevant response
38 answers 38