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

Despite my thorough refutation of Con’s arguments and his misunderstanding of the original Craig’s argument, instead of conceding, has now alleged me of misconduct by saying: “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. …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.” This is appalling. Firstly, he didn’t give any hint of his fallacious conception of his argument, but merely defined some terms to which I agreed. Now he accuses me that I didn’t clarify what exactly we mean by “life” in the teleological argument! You’ve got to be kidding. I suppose we are all mature people here; and I already feel so redundant when most of them tend to define “God” in their opening statement when you can presume it since mainly all are debating Christians in these debates. If that’s the standard culture that people feel a great need to predefine every key word of the topic splitting hairs then I shouldn’t be surprised why Con expected me to define every single term in splitting hair details. Fortunately, I cannot permit this splitting hair teenage tactics for I am sure that my opponent is also a mature person, as opposed to the teenage blind new-atheists. It is so obvious and expected each other that we understand basics terminologies and arguments that we are debating. So if a debater tries to attack semantics and strawman, it is not my fault. Please tell me, if a debater tries to play semantics and use equivocation fallacy and I refute him, is it my fault?!! Let me continue the. Instead of humbly conceding with me, Con is trying to defend his straw-man argument. He alleges that it is irrelevant what scientists mean by “life”, but what I and Craig mean by life. This is really not a rational and sincere accusation in defense of his equivocation fallacy. He then stresses on another term “intelligent life” of believers in heaven, objecting as to how can believers be intelligent unless they live in the fine-tuned universe for life? Again this is another classic example of association fallacy conflating the organic life with the spiritual eternal life of Christians. Let me ignore these desperate attempts and carry on further elaborating how fallacious are his arguments. To paraphrase his axiomatic form of the argument, it goes like: 1- All living beings require fine tuned universe 2- Living God caused and designed the fine tuned universe 3- Therefore life can exist without fine tuned universe This is just the same association fallacy that I have already explained. “Living beings” in first premise is falsely associated with “living God”, whereas both are two different category of life. Despite the fact he predefined the nature of God in the opening post, and despite the fact that I explicitly defined the actual teleological argument. I cannot see any sincere reason for him to again conflate with the two categorically different kinds of life. One is uncaused, immaterial eternal unchanging God and another is material, organic, contingent life form. Not only this; but he even goes on to allege that this is “special pleading” for God! It would’ve been special pleading for God if and only if God was in the same category of organic life we are dealing with. Same error is done by him on “intelligence” in conflating the organic and spiritual immaterial life. Just because God is living and organic life is also living, you cannot make a hasty irrelevant association to form any presumed conclusion. You need to maintain basic conceptions of the original arguments of others. You have to maintain the original meaning of terms like "intelligent life" as used in the argument of fine-tuning lest you are making deliberate straw-man attacks.Let me again demonstrate for readers to learn how to refute such fallacies. An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. On the face value the arguments of Con are identical with the following illustrations: • John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists. • Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal. • All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog I urge my opponent once again to concede with me for the debate had already ended in the earlier round. It is only for the sake of learning and our love for rationality and integrity that we should humbly concede with truths leaving behind all deliberate errors of irrationality and logical fallacies which are just attempts of Satan disguising in irrationality and dogmatic narrow-mindedness. Let us mutually agree to close the debate and let our integrity the ultimate winner.