If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is interesting to me, but I have to face facts and say, personally, that I can no more call things "fine-tuned" than I can say that I know a god or gods do or do not exist.Truth be told, if things weren't as they were, it's unlikely we'd be here to ask the question, so lacking an appropriately full view of the universe or multiverse or dirac foam brane or whatever you want to call the whole grand "it", I just have to be glad, I guess, that I can ask the question.It's as empty to declare the universe fine-tuned as it is to say that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garden or, indeed, a floating (maybe angry) beard in the sky who cares whether i eat shellfish or wear cotton-polyester-blend socks.I think I can say, however, that the evidence of absence FOR the judeo-christian-islamic god (indeed, for almost all gods save perhaps FSM and Eris, but only because I have a soft spot for them - ewige blumenkraft) is, indeed, absence of their evidence.world not 6000 years old. check. no flood. check. dinosaurs millions of years before man, ergo man not so special. check. earth not the centre of the universe. check. lack of a historical jesus. check. lack of evidence for all major supernatural occurences in the bible (i.e. ones that should leave evidence). check.jury's in. verdict declared, in my books.something ELSE that may or may not be qualified to be called a god or gods...well, that's another question.Which one were we asking for?

actually, both of your two points are controversial in the extreme. That is, I believe, "confirmation bias"? Sorry, I don't know the terms.You confuse the fact that life as we know is as we know it, with the universe being as it is specifically for life as we know it to be "life as we know it".We're here - correct. The universe' make-up allows us to be here - correct. The "fact" that the universe was specifically fine tuned to be as it is? I don't think you can go that far.Saying it is "fine tuned" implies that somebody or something did the fine-tuning. Saying it's fine-tuned implies it's not possible for it to happen "naturally".I don't think your universe or multiverse creation skills are that good you can pronounce such a thing as quantified. no, there you're wrong too. It is not certainly true that the universe was fine-tuned - it's true that it is the way it is, but you haven't proven fine-tuning.It's true that if things were different, we'd have a very different universe, but that's besides the point.If we knew more about the universe, or the multiverse, and could say without a doubt that it is extremely unlikely for a universe like ours to exist...you'd still not have definitive proof of "fine tuning".You'd have to either prove it impossible or find proof it was deliberately shaped.Get back to us when you have