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

Thank you for the response, Pro. I’m not surprised that this objection hasn’t been seen before, though I am surprised that it’s seen as amusing. I’d be wary of mentioning that an argument is amusing from the off, as it can be construed that someone needs to belittle an argument and make their viewpoint and response seem superior to the reader, before they have even offered their side of the bargain. To start, as I expected, Pro has no contention with my suggestion that God is an intelligent life. The debate can carry on with this suggestion being a given. Anyway, getting on to the meat of Pro’s response, my objection is not a straw man. First of all, I made it perfectly clear in my opening statement that Pro must agree to the definition of God supplied and the inference I had made. With relation to my inference that, “life/intelligent life cannot exist without a fine-tuned universe, Pro clearly agrees with this. Now Pro is saying that: “For he assumes that WLC or we argue that everything intelligent or every living being requires fine tuned universe. This is not the fine tuning argument that WLC makes rather it is that God is the best explanation of the fine-tuned, life-permitting universe.” and; “Secondly, he is equivocating between two different living beings”. If Pro has an issue with what “life” meant in the inference in which he originally agreed to, then perhaps he shouldn’t have agreed to the debate, or at least made known specifically what “life” does mean to Craig and himself in his opening statement. Bringing this up now is just simply moving the goalposts after the game has started. I don’t see how the sloppiness and paucity of his and Craig’s statements is my fault. However, I’ll be generous and allow this shifting of the goalposts, but only to show that not only is this now also a case of special pleading, but it’s also a narrowing of the goalposts to such an extent that it’s begging the question. So only specific living beings (physical ones) can only exist in a specific type (physical) of fine-tuned universe which allows physical living beings to exist? You could knock me down with a feather…. Continuing, Pro also refers to where Craig states that: “By "life" scientists mean that property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce.” It’s not relevant what scientists mean by life. What is relevant is what Pro and Craig believe life can be. Craig clearly believes life can be more than what scientists say life is, as 1) he believes in God, and 2) he believes that humans (at least) can have an eternal life with God external to the fine-tuned universe. Something needs clearing up by Pro here – is human intelligence dependent on a physical fine-tuned universe or not, not forgetting that Craig states that: “The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable."? Clearly, the answer has to be “no,” unless Pro believes that we won’t be intelligent in our eternal existence with God sans the physical fine-tuned universe. Not that that matters much anyway, as it’s already been agreed that God is intelligent and exists without a physical fine-tuned universe. What can also be shown here is Craig’s compartmentalising. Here is a man who believes life is more than just materialistic, a man who is trying to persuade others that there is life out there that isn’t based on the material (even with this very argument!), a man who believes that humans are more than just materialistic, yet here he is pandering to materialism with his limiting use of what constitutes life. This is clear special pleading in using a specific, fine-tuned definition of life to fit his fine-tuned argument, when he simultaneously believes life can be more than just this specific, fine-tuned definition. Pro makes this clear by stating there are “two different living beings”. Now I’ll move onto Pro’s false accusation of my use of an association fallacy. Pro said this about my argument: “Con's argument goes same way: All life form requires fine-tuned universe to exist God is living being. Therefore God requires a fine-tuned universe to exist.” This is not my argument. This is merely one conclusion that can be reached if all life forms required a fine-tuned universe to exist, but I am fully aware that it isn’t possible for God to exist in a fine-tuned universe based on how God was defined in my opening statement. My actual argument is that “the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life argument is flawed when a creator/God is concluded as the most plausible explanation” and to show it is flawed by being self-refuting. It goes like this: It is believed by some that for life/intelligent life to exist it requires a fine-tuned universe to exist in. It is also believed by some of these people that a life/intelligent life designed and caused the fine-tuned universe to exist. Therefore a life/intelligent life exists without the fine-tuned universe. Therefore life/intelligent life can exist without the required existence of a fine-tuned universe. In summary, the existence of Y depends on the existence of X, yet Y designed and caused X to exist, therefore Y isn’t dependent on X, but X on Y. Like above, if Craig and Pro are to shift the goalposts to mean just physical/organic life, then Pro needs to ask himself whether human intelligence is based on the material or not. If it is, then how can we exist with God in an afterlife, and if it isn’t, then our intelligent life isn’t dependent on the fine-tuned universe.To conclude my entry to this round, Pro will see that there isn’t anything for me to concede to and that it is he who needs to ask himself some fundamental questions in order to not appear contradictory in his argument and beliefs.