Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:
The part where you treat very large numbers as literally infinite, then build on that axiom to say things are obviously impossible when that is patently false. But I'll stop harping on on that one since you're obviously determined to plug your ears and avoid the subject on that one. And there's even more holes to address if you're going to ignore that one.
I'm also ignoring that your 27 independent constants are the largest number I've seen anyone dare to propose and a good number are still being debated about being truly independent. Because even if that's driven by a desire to inflate the number as much as possible, in the face of infinity the scale is irrelevant anyway.
Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang
Change all of those "would"s to "could"s. There's no proof and no particular reason to believe that this is the only combination of constants that produce an ordered universe. There could be infinite combinations of constants that produce an ordered universe, it might be differently ordered, but ordered nonetheless. On the flip side as we don't know the origin of these constants we have no idea what range of values they could even possibly take. It may be that even in the absence of our universe that these are still the only possible values those constants can take and their presence to lead to our ordered universe is absolutely guaranteed. You just cannot claim with any kind of certainty to know how likely an ordered universe was to have emerged at the genesis of our universe. These probability calculations are more like post-hoc hoe math than real math.
The part where you treat very large numbers as literally infinite, then build on that axiom to say things are obviously impossible when that is patently false. But I'll stop harping on on that one since you're obviously determined to plug your ears and avoid the subject on that one. And there's even more holes to address if you're going to ignore that one.
I'm also ignoring that your 27 independent constants are the largest number I've seen anyone dare to propose and a good number are still being debated about being truly independent. Because even if that's driven by a desire to inflate the number as much as possible, in the face of infinity the scale is irrelevant anyway.
Change all of those "would"s to "could"s. There's no proof and no particular reason to believe that this is the only combination of constants that produce an ordered universe. There could be infinite combinations of constants that produce an ordered universe, it might be differently ordered, but ordered nonetheless. On the flip side as we don't know the origin of these constants we have no idea what range of values they could even possibly take. It may be that even in the absence of our universe that these are still the only possible values those constants can take and their presence to lead to our ordered universe is absolutely guaranteed. You just cannot claim with any kind of certainty to know how likely an ordered universe was to have emerged at the genesis of our universe. These probability calculations are more like post-hoc hoe math than real math.