Summations Only

I see this "anti-fine-tuning" sentiment repeatedly here at EvC and the wider skeptic community. It needs to be appreciated that we recognise many examples of fine-tuning,as we use the term in cosmology and astrophysics, throughout the Universe, and not one of these examples suggests that the cause of the fine-tuning is anything other than a natural process and/or selection effect.The problem is not with fine-tuning but with the concept of a fine-tuner...

Apologies for not taking an active role in this thread - work keeping me far too busy - but there was some great input by the regulars and I did not feel there was much to add.There were some requests to revisit the topic of fine-tuning and I'd be happy to contribute to a thread if someone wants to start one.So, my one (admittedly rather off-topic) post here grants me the right to a summary, so here it is:We see the concept of time being an integral part of the Universe still causing the inevitable confusion. A past-finite time dimension inevitably draws the ideas of a "beginning", and a "moment of creation", absent from considerations of a past-infinite time dimension. Of course, from an "outside" vanatge point on the Universe, these two possibilities are essentially identical.Similarly with the spatial dimensions: the idea that a finite universe leaves room for an "outside" where-as an infinite universe does not is equally misguided. The finiteness or infiniteness of the time and space dimensions are merely internal geometric properties of the Universe.Accepting for a moment its ridiculously ill-defined properties, a creator deity can just as easily create a universe that has a big bang, as a universe that has an infinite past. As such, Big Bang Theory does not in any way support belief in a Universe designer or creator god; appears compatible with - perhaps; support - no.