The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is sound

Working through Pro's argument from the top, I have formulated the following:Misrepresentation - I haven’t alleged Pro of misconduct, only suggested that it would have perhaps been better for him to be specific about what he means by life from the start. Pro didn’t clarify what exactly he meant by life in his opening statement. This is an observation, not an accusation. Misrepresentation - I haven’t expected Pro to define every single term. I merely made the suggestion that it may have been helpful to the debate for him to make known specifically what he meant by life from the start. Projection – I am not the one splitting hairs over definitions. I am not the one using two definitions of intelligent life. If someone believes there are at least two specific definitions, then 1) they are obviously aware of these definitions, and 2) they should perhaps, for ease of discussion, elucidate from the start what these definitions are and which one they are using. Ad-hominem – “teenage tactics”, questioning my maturity, asserting “blind new-atheists” aren’t mature. What has this to do with anything? This is all irrelevant. Projection – I am not trying to play at semantics. Pro is the one with an issue over the definition of intelligent life. I merely suggested he made this known in his opening statement. Do we need to go over this again? Superiority complex – Aggrandising his own argument by stating that I should “humbly concede”. Slight misrepresentation – I said that what is relevant is what Pro and Craig believe life can be, and not what Pro and Craig mean by life. Granted it’s only a subtle difference, but it’s key. What they mean by life in this instance is what scientists mean by life, but they also simultaneously believe life can be more than just what scientists mean by life. It’s this belief that leads to a case of special pleading because they only use the definition of life that fits the fine-tuned argument. Misrepresentation and evasion – I asked whether Pro thought human intelligence was dependent on a physical fine-tuned universe or not, in two different ways, and also followed up with the logical conclusions from either position. I was not conflating “organic life” with “spiritual life”. I was merely asking as to which of these two types of life he believes human intelligence falls under. However, Pro has ignored this, misrepresented me and then accused me of a “desperate attempt”. If Pro could stick to the argument I present and attempt to answer the questions I posed, instead of resorting to surreptitious ad-hominems, then perhaps we could have a more productive debate. How can I be using an association fallacy if in my opening statement I predefined God as an uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial being? With the definition I supplied, it is clear that a “living God” falls in the category of a “living being”. However, this is now a moot point and any further reference to my use of an “association fallacy” and “straw-man” is redundant, as I have and already had in the last round, accepted the belief of two different types of life, and the use of only one of those for the fine-tuned argument. So again, I am not conflating the “two categorically different kinds of life” that Pro believes exist. To reiterate, I have generously accepted that Pro is using physical/organic life as opposed to “spiritual” life in accordance with the fine-tuned argument, but only so I can show that this is now a case of special pleading and compartmentalisation, so that you can fit life to mean what you need it to mean for the fine-tuned argument, even though you simultaneously believe life isn’t just what it means for the fine-tuned argument. Misrepresentation – I haven’t alleged that there is special pleading for God. What I’ve said is special pleading is using a specific definition of life that fits what the fine-tuned argument requires. Pro seems to be stuck on the idea that I am conflating his two definitions of life/intelligent life. I think it’s clear that when I ask under what category of life does human intelligence fall under, then it shows that I’m aware of the distinction he is making, and wanting to know what he considers human intelligence to be. I’ll ask similar again – is human intelligence dependent on a physical fine-tuned universe or not, ie is it spiritually based? Also, if Pro believes there is a difference, what distinguishes physical/organic intelligence and spiritual intelligence? I feel the answers to these questions are pivotal to the rest of the debate. The closing statement is irrelevant to the debate at hand. It appears Pro is trying to pander to my and the readers introspection and questions my integrity. This is another ad-hominem as it’s also insinuating that I am debating disingenuously. I find this patronising and condescending and I don’t see why Pro needs to stoop to getting personal. Pro is also asserting that Satan is somehow involved in this. Really, what has that got to do with anything in the debate? To move this along and drive the point home again, while I don’t agree with splitting the definition of intelligent life into two categories, so that you can have one definition which conveniently fits the fine-tuned argument and one that is conveniently exempt of it, I had accepted that this distinction was being used and the only issue I had was with not making it known from the start. So from there, Pro can answer the questions I have stated are pivotal.