Don't be coy, you even allude to Dumbski's UPB.

Our current knowledge of the physical constants and their relationships gives us no way other than imagination to infer anything other than one (this universe) in sample space.   One is insufficient to allow chance to account for observed configuration.  What happened to rules of logic and reason, IamMe? 

uh oh, here we go again in circles....

I can recommend an article or book.  The observations that 30-40 physical constants are fine tuned to support life has been known for some time now.  Knowing your penchant for detail and supposing your motivations, I have no interest in a long and fruitless conversation about it.

Here Physicist Paul Davies, who is not a theist, writes that the consensus view is increasingly impressed with the evidence for “some sort of design” of the cosmos:

The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is ‘something behind it all’ is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.

First of all, you are assuming it happened either by chance or by design. There is of course a third option.

Also, logic and reason tell us that a non-zero probability is still a possibility.

And, since we do not know what (if anything) exists outside our universe of before the big bang, we can't say with any degree of certainty whether there is 1 universe or billions of universes or infinite universes. One universe is not the default option. Simply (and correctly) pointing out that we have no evidence on which to infer multiple universes does not mean that we assume only one universe until there is evidence to the contrary. Both are positive statements, so the burden of proof should be shared equally. The default position is don't know.

I'd like to add something: Sure God explains everything (except the lack of evidence for his own existence) and that is exactly why the explanation is wrong. It's too easy. It's lazy. It avoids the important questions by simply attributing all unexplained events to a magic entity that can do anything.

What evidence? The apparent improbability of our universe is equally well explained by the existence of a creator or the existence of a large number or an infinite number of universes.

The funny thing is, is that RF still doesn't see the error of his fallacy. He has invested so much time on trying to understand it, he can't let it go.

1. He thinks that the universe is designed, but has no evidence of a designer which would have had to be more "designed" in order to create a design such like the universe. Meanwhile, the physical properties of the universe explain virtually everything quite nicely - not bad for only about 300 years of work. (as opposed to 10K's of religious thinking).

2. He suggests that the "fine-tuned" aspect of the universe is so precise that any change would render life impossible.
a.  How does he know? Has he twiddled with the knobs?
b.  If that is the case, then I'd appreciate an account of how a designer had life before the conditions of life were available?

Its obvious that RF expects reality to conform to his theology, just like Paul Davies, who, despite the ham-handed attempt by RF to claim that Davies "isn't a Theist" (as if he should be heeded because he's not a supernatural dogmatist) IS a Deist and apologist for the Xian religion.

Basically, there haven't been any new arguments for a god in 800 years, and yet plenty new ones against god that have gone unanswered, or have retreated to "you have to take it on faith".

RF may feel that faith is an important tool for knowledge - that he takes both his religion and science on faith, but he needn't speak for the rest of us, nor try to confuse the issue with his personal belief system.