The Fine Tuning of the Universe is best explained by a Designer

CON claimed I gave examples of complexity and fragility and then "jumped" directly to a conclusion. Yes I did give examples of complexity and fragility, but I do not feel I jumped directly to the conclusion that there is therefore a designer. I also gave reasons that design is the most reasonable conclusion, based on Premise Three of my original argument. Since the anthropic principles I listed exhibit contingency, complexity, and specificity they are then most likely not caused by natural causes or chance. I also said that while none of those conditions of contingency, complexity and specificity by themselves makes design the best alternative, when we consider all three properties, design then becomes the most reasonable alternative. Since there was confusion on that point, perhaps I should elaborate on it a bit more. To claim that anything " whether it is a telephone, a human cell, or the universe " is designed means that it cannot explain itself. Its features indicate an intelligent agent outside itself who is responsible for those features (Groothius, 2011). Science empirically uses design inference to detect intelligence in archeology, astronomy, cosmology, forensics, and the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Design is detected by filtering out chance and necessity and looking for evidence of contingency, complexity, and specificity. An event or object is then said to have an intelligent cause if it exhibits all of those factors. Again, each factor by itself is not sufficient to infer design, but if all three exist, which Hawking and others claim they do, then it is indicative of design. To take an example given by CON, the snowflake " it is complex and arguably specific but not contingent, and so I would agree with CON that snowflakes are therefore not necessarily designed. I accept that CON has not ruled out random chance (or even design apparently). I made that assumption based on the fact that it was left out of his round 1 response, and since the only other options were nature or design that he was electing only natural causes. Therefore, I do not consider this to be a straw man fallacy. I will address the probability and chance topic in the order that CON brought them up in his round 2 response. CON states that it is less likely that something supernatural created something natural than it is that something natural created something natural. First, I think we are confusing creation with design, and although there is overlap, they are not necessarily the same. Since he made that statement though, I would like further explanation as to how he came to this conclusion. How does he know this? What does he mean by something natural creating something natural? I understand reproduction, but how would this work in terms of the universe? After all, this is what we are debating. Again, we are overlapping creation with design, but I think CON will agree that there is some overlap in the two topics. I also point out that I am not trying to shift the burden of proof here, as CON made a claim of which I would like further explanation. CON also makes the claim that "even if the odds of life arising WITHIN the universe are low, it could still happen, and it is not impossible, so we don"t need a designer. This argument isn"t proof that the universe was designed, because you have several options, one (something supernatural) much less probable than the other (something natural)." Since he made that claim, I again would like to know what he means by it could still happen. How would it happen? By what process would it happen? Just because it is possible that something could happen, does not mean it is the most plausible solution. Similar to his exploding chair example, I can also say that it is possible a rhinoceros is in my living room right now destroying my new furniture, but it isn"t very plausible for me to worry about it. CON also claims that the argument is not proof that the universe was designed. Of course it isn"t, but I don"t think that is a reasonable expectation, and it was not my initial claim that I could prove a designer " only that it is the most reasonable explanation. If I could prove there was a designer, or if CON could prove natural causes, we likely would not be debating on an internet forum. Instead we would be accepting our Nobel prizes because one of us was able to do something no one in history had been able to do. It has been mentioned that design is unlikely because of the apparent inefficiency of design in the universe. CON mentions tornadoes, floods, etc. as evidence for non-design. However, these and other natural disasters, including earthquakes are necessary for Earth to continue to thrive. I don"t think we can blame the designer for people being killed by them any more than we can blame a car manufacturer for someone dying in a car wreck when they did not use the car as it was intended. It may sound insensitive, but if people do not wish to risk dying in earthquakes, then they should probably not live in an area prone to earthquakes. Because people are harmed by something does not necessarily mean there is a flaw in the design. Furthermore, CON makes the observation that there is "bad" design in the universe. First, even if it were true, bad design does not rule out design. We see examples of poor designs all the time, but this doesn't mean they weren't designed in the first place. Bad design doesn't equal no design. Second, I never made a claim of good or efficient design, only that there was design. Finally, if there is a designer, who are we to claim what is bad or good design? As Demski (2001) said, "to find fault with biological design because it misses some idealized optimum is off the mark. Not knowing the objectives of the designer, we are in no position to say whether the designer has proposed a faulty compromise among those objectives." CON makes the claim that humans have adapted for life on Earth. Since he made this claim, I would like further explanation. What does he mean by adapted? How does he know this? Why have humans not adapted for life on Mars or Venus but only specifically Earth (as far as we know)? I agree with CON that the laws of physics are important. Since we have alluded to these laws before, where do they come from and why do they work? Perhaps this is beyond the scope of this debate, but if we are discussing design versus nature, how does nature itself create or design its own natural laws? Finally, I will address CON"s question about odds and the unlikely existence of anthropic principles. These odds were obtained from sources such as Stephen Hawking"s Theory of Everything (2002), Physicist Stephen Weinberg"s (like Hawking also an atheist) A Designer Universe? (1999) and Astronomer Fred Hoyle"s "The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections" article taken from Engineering and Science (1981). So when CON wants to know how I know the probabilities I claim to know, I got them from other sources. I make no claim that I am a mathematician, and so I borrowed them from what I think most will consider reliable and unbiased sources. For my conclusion, I will start by restating my initial argument. There is evidence of fine-tuning in the universe (given by the anthropic constants, among many others that weren"t mentioned); this fine-tuning must either be by natural law, chance, a combination of both, or design; they are not because of natural law or chance because of the combination of contingency, complexity, and specificity (examples and explanations given); therefore they are the result of design (by elimination); therefore there is a designer. I do not claim to have proven design, because there other possibilities, depending on how the filters of contingency, complexity and specificity are taken, along with any a priori worldview bias. But based on my initial argument, evidence given, and explanations, I feel that the Fine-Tuning of the Universe is best explained by a Designer.