Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor

then the stubborn atheist will say that its due to chance(A lucky accident), but the problem with this is that it has no appreciation of the fantastic odds we are talking about here. Lets just take the subatomic weakforce. If it alone had been altered by one part to the 10 to the 100th power(10 followed by 100 zeros), teh universe would not have been life permitting. there are dozens more of these constants and qualities in addiotion to this.
part 3

all of which have to fall into this exquisitely narrow range of life permitting values in order for the universe to be life permitting. In other words , the idea that this happened by chance is infinitesimally improbable. The odds we are talking about here are beyond imagination. If i were to win the lottery every second of every day in my life your going to think that the lottery was rigged, that some intellegient force were cheating in my favor.
GOD BLESS

I have heard of principle, but it just sounds silly to me. Think of it this way: If the universe was inhospitable to life then there would no one around to think about it. Therefore the question "is the universe hospitable to life?" only has one answer, yes.

It's kind of asking someone if they're sleeping where the only possible answer is no.

*Sorry for the grammarfail in previous post. I'm busy with school work and didn't do the proper spell check.

These constants your talking about. Why can't life have adjusted to them rather than the other way around?

You also fail to explain why life can't exist if changes are made to the constants. Life doesn't necessarily have to look and work the way we know it.

Lastly I want to point out that none of this is proof of a god. Rather I would say it's a classical "God of the Gap"-argument.

you're saying words, but nothing is coming out.

Hoyle is only one of the most well know atheist scientists of the 20th century. You must be a teenager man. You need to read. Hoyle was a famous atheist who now BELIEVES IN GOD and as a scientist witha critical and mathematical mind far greater then yours, he is admitting the existence of god rationally.
Thats why he isnt an atheist anymore and thats why flew , the greatest atheist of the 20th century is now alsoa believer in god.

You still fail to explain why that should concern me. What he thinks have nothing to do with the actual truth. Just because I think of cake doesn't mean a cake magically appears in front of me.

I base my scientific understanding on the facts and theories that the scientist present, not on the scientist themselves. And even if I did then my view on the religious issue wouldn't change since the majority of scientist are atheist.