Mini arguments for God's existence

You can reject those propositions as some atheist would, but then you need to have good solid reasoning for doing so.

This is the only one I find compelling to any degree. It really is uncanny. But it's been rebutted by arguments such as the anthropic principle.

What we know is that 13.8 billion years ago something happened that produced a universe with hydrogen and little else.   Gravity caused the hydrogen to clump into stars which produced the heavier atoms needed to produce life on planets orbiting subsequent generations of stars.

We know that not by reading books of creation myths - they tell very different stories - but by the slow and difficult method of observation and scientific enquiry.   No creation myth tells of a cosmic background radiation or neutron stars.  Compared to what we have discovered,  creation myths show how unimaginative we are.   What scripture would dare to propose our atoms were cooked in the heart of stars?

What does spiritual mean, anyway?  isn't the fact our atoms are the ashes of long dead stars a spiritual lesson?  Surely it cannot be unspiritual just because it is true?

it's important to remain open and at least neutral about what science finds or studies. 

Two different natures Keith, the physical and the conscious spiritual.

The 'god particle' meme seems to have originated as the title of a book written in 1993, but I don't remember anybody taking about 'god particles' until very recently, ie before the discovery of the higgs boson round 2013, twenty years later.

I think physicists have done their best to disown that nickname dredged up from the past when it was a publishers idea of a good comercial title for yet another another routine pop-sci book.  

But it has made people more aware of some obscure science even if very few understand it.   I don't understand it, but if it is called the 'god particle' i know it must be important so i want to know more.  The 'higgs particle' must be the most boring and uninspiring name imaginable!

The problem is that suppose the varied laws meant carbon could not form.  

That is only a problem if we assume we know all the possible ways life can manifest, and/or that life HAD to be.

Tried hard? that depends on how ignorant you may be of the subject.

 I doubt they were hand-tweaked by an old beardy bloke in a robe, but you never know.   Unless you are a theist in which case you do 'know' it was indeed an old beardy bloke with a beard.    

This is the only one I find compelling to any degree. It really is uncanny. But it's been rebutted by arguments such as the anthropic principle.

You should remember that all theories are interpretations of the evidences available including materialism/atheism. So while some theory may be compelling it's only an interpretation either way (whether it be Theism or atheism) and so many believe a Theistic interpretation of what we study through science is superior, or even what we experience from our own perceptions. Science is a neutral study and has no ideologies or preferences and therefore the interpretation is up for grabs, what one believes to be superior is up for interpretation at one level which is why it's important to remain open and at least neutral about what science finds or studies. 

IMO the conscious nature of what we experience is better articulated through spirituality because it reaches where a materialistic study is incapable. In essence, if one accepts a materialistic/atheistic ideology they have accepted an incomplete study or theory through an incomplete study and theory. 

My main point is that scientific findings can be interpreted in favor or against Theism, it just depends on how one examines and interprets the evidences.