Summations Only

So if an intelligent being designed our universe then it indicates that an intelligent being designed our universe. That's a very circular argument.

What are those calculations, and how do the require a creator? Evidence please. I am willing. Let's see the evidence. That is a circular argument. Fine-tuning is defined as a creative event. I have been willing to debate the evidence this entire thread. Where is the evidence?

Will that thread contain a long list of bare assertions just like this thread?

Ever the tease. We won't know until you actually present the evidence. So why don't you present the evidence and find out?

I am of the opinion that every occurrence is rare. It only happens that we think some outcomes are more special than others. What are the odds of a planet like Venus occurring in another solar system? Probably about the same odds as another Earth, isn't it? Venus is just as special as Earth is from a probability standpoint. If we were able to find other universes and found one that had laws that did not allow for life, the odds of that universe occuring with those specific laws is still the same as the probability of our universe having the laws it has.One of the ways we fool ourselves is to put more importance on one outcome over the other. Spend some time around professional baseball players and you will run into this type of human flaw. Superstitions are quite common in dugouts. Gambling addictions are often fed by the psychological condition where memories of winning are better remembered than losing. We tend to ignore the times something didn't work and only focus on the times it did work.

Nope. Every single outcome has the same odds, including ten 3's.

First, what evidence do you have that demonstrates fine-tuning is real?Second, if a deity exists it is not a problem for atheists. We will just stop being atheists. I currently do not believe that Bigfoot exists, but if one is found it isn't a problem for me. I will gladly accept that Bigfoot exists, and would be very interested in the biological findings. Deities are the same. If you have real evidence for the existence of a deity I would be more than happy to see it.

That is not fine-tuning. You seem to be confusing the concepts. Fine-tuning is the actual act of tuning a universe. It is an act, not a range of values.Using our lottery example, we can calculate the odds of a specific person winning. It is an entirely different claim that a supernatural deity guided the ping pong balls to produce that specific winner. They almost always build on one another. The current state of our universe is extremely contingent on its history.

I don't doubt that some scientists do describe it in this manner. What I am saying is that this is a bad description. When they have a lottery drawing this is not a case of fine tuning for a specific winner. Very true. As has been pointed out, we are not sure that the 4 fundamental forces can be any different, or if universes can be different.

From your wiki quote:"It appears that many of the properties of the Universe have special values in the sense that a Universe where these properties differ slightly would not be able to support intelligent life.[52][53] Not all scientists agree that this fine-tuning exists."That usage still bothers me. Whether or not there is a narrow range of properties that would result in intelligent life has nothing to do with the act of tuning. For any universe we find there is probably a very narrow range of properties that can result in the unique characteristics of that universe. Every universe would qualify as being "fine tuned" which defeats the purpose of the usage.

My argument is that fine tuning is a Texas Sharpshooting fallacy because it assumes that intelligent life was the target, and that someone was aiming for that target. Instead, we are painting the bull's eye around the bullet hole and discussing the slight variations in bullet flight that would have caused the bullet to miss the bull's eye.

What makes it more plausible?What realm does this intelligence reside in? How did that realm come about?

Now you need a universe with no beginning or end as well as an unevidenced intelligent cause. You are adding more and more unevidenced entities. That is not a good sign. Your intelligent cause is growing more improbable by the minute. The real question is why include your beliefs at all?

Right, and you are saying that it is more probable that we started with an intelligence that came from . . . nowhere I guess . . . than to produce an intelligence from processes that we can observe all around us. I don't consider my parents to be gods even though they created me.

Why not? Designed by what, and based on what evidence?