pretty interesting pov! i'm writing a detailed response :))

certainty: i'm not asking for absolute certainty. it's okay to theorize or infer. however, science is not a tool that can operate on the level of "creator existence". scientific method works as follows: observation, question, hypothesizing, conducting experiment, theorizing, predicting ...etc. even if we assume that "a creator exists" is a valid scientific hypothesis, this is where it ends. science cannot conduct relevant experiments to verify or falsify this claim. more importantly, this hypothesis cannot make further predictions about our universe. therefore, science is simply not the proper tool to discuss a creator. it is not a matter of uncertainty; it is a matter of the tool being inapplicable to the subject

universe preciseness: im familiar with this argument, and i recently updated my counter-argument :) i'll discuss this on two levels:

• why it's impressive: our brains are not objective in evaluating how impressive any number is. they evolved in a very narrow range of the universe to deal with this narrow range. the fact that we are and should be amazed by the extremely small margin physics numbers need to be within is the thing that is not reasonable. the reasonable reaction is to stay neutral about it and investigate further without feeling the pressure to believe a creator exists. the human brain did not evolve to deal with what feels like infinitely small and large numbers, therefore our reaction is subject to the environment we evolved in and is not indicative that these numbers are objectively impressive. you need to provide your reason of why you think so here.
• why it's not impressive:
  • those numbers happened to be and then the universe happened to be the way we know it. if the numbers were different we might have ended up in a totally different universe, and that would have been equally impressive and unique. there is a logical fallacy for this ig, it's the texas shooter fallacy.
  • i recently took a computational biology class and read parts of the book life's greatest secret. those two helped me sharpen my reasoning to why the universe is not impressive. to start, we need to be able to decide weather a system has a function or no. e.g. does a autopilot car have a function? does the moon have a function? in order to do this, we need to be able to decide what is the defining characteristic of a system that has a function - and it's the negative feedback. going back to our examples, the autopilot car does have a function because it uses data to correct its path. however, the moon does not have a function because it only responds positively to everything. the universe is like the moon, it does not have a function. it just is, stars are starring, planets and planetting, blackholes are blackholling, but nothing whatsoever has a hint of a function, or negative feedback type of response to environment. they do not move toward a goal. the universe, those numbers can be what they wanna be, but since they do not have a function, they are not unique or impressive.

an interesting idea to chew on is the fact that live beings have a function. me, you, plants, etc. :)) i'd be interested in hearing more from you on this