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

Pro basically just mentions things in the universe that are complex and fragile, again jumping directly to a conclusion that hasn’t been proven (that it is all thanks to a designer). I explain:“I am assuming here that CON has eliminated random "chance" as a possibility since he didn't mention it).” I am not necessarily ruling out chance, because certain complexities can arise from chance. For example, if we throw letters at random, eventually a complex sentence may arise. However improbable it is, it could still happen, so I don’t completely rule out that certain things can happen by chance. “But I submit that he is then eliminating the possibility of anything else besides natural forces a priori, and by doing so he is committing an error of philosophical science.”Unfortunately you commit a straw man fallacy, because I do not rule out anything besides natural forces a priori, I simply say that it is more credible to believe that these complexities came out from natural processes rather than supernatural ones that haven’t been proven.“To state my opening argument another way, without a Designer, given the odds, a life-forbidding universe would be much more likely than a life-permitting universe. However, as we all know, we have a life-permitting universe.” Well, and? Without a hole-maker, it is less probable for a hole to be made, that doesn’t prove that a hole was made by a hole-maker. This is, of course, an example in the natural realm, what Pro is asserting is that a supernatural cause created something natural, which is less probable than something natural creating something natural. 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). For example: a chair next to me breaks all of a sudden. What is more probable? That the laws of physics have been broken and another dimension was opened to allow for a spirit to break my chair, or that the chair had several physical problems in the first place?How can the universe have been designed for life, when life only exists in an extremely minuscule part of the universe? If a universe had been designed for organisms to live in, we would have a universe with a whole lot more of them than it actually does. Again, we cannot survive in space, water, fire, high altitudes, extreme pressures, etc. We are constantly killed by tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, diseases, etc. If this universe was specifically made for life, why is there so little? And why is it so fragile? It seems more plausible to think life is a side-effect, something that might arise besides all else.We also know that life won’t exist soon. The Andromeda galaxy is on a direct course to hit our own, (1) and the Sun will eventually burn out. (2) Some design, huh? In a few years life won’t exist, exactly the universe Pro is imagining. The thermodynamic principle itself reveals that the universe’s energy will soon run out. It’s not that this universe will have life forever, nothingness is the next big thing. If the universe was created for life, then why do we have so little? And why will it go extinct in a few billion years, if not less?“To conclude my argument for this round, I will summarize by stating that I have given a robust, although non-exhaustive, list of anthropic constants that allow life (or the universe itself) to exist. The elimination of any one of these constants would cause life or the universe itself to not exist”We have adapted to the conditions on Earth, they weren’t created FOR us (evolution). Of course we will die if the conditions change, just the same as if you keep an animal at extremely high temperatures (which it is adapted to) and the switch him over to Antarctica. Yet evolution isn't intelligently designed. As for the universe not existing without it’s current physical laws, I’m not entirely sure of that, but the fact that something is fragile again doesn’t prove a designer. It means that the laws of physics are important. If the trunk of a tree were to stop existing, the tree would no longer be a tree, yet that doesn’t prove the tree was designed.“For example, the law of gravity didn’t create anything, but it did allow for the creation of things. The same can be said of physics. Physics itself doesn’t create anything; it is by definition a branch of science and cannot create anything.” “CON"s example of evolution also does not hold, since evolution is a scientific theory, and natural laws do not create theories.” “I must interject though that "laws" don’t create anything”I think Pro is getting mixed up a little here. Laws are an observation, a tool we use for describing occurring phenomena. Laws are used to say what is happening, theories explain why(3). When I say evolution gives place to complexity, I mean that the process that occurs which we name evolution gives place to complex life forms. When I say that the law of gravity creates systems, I mean that the observable phenomena we call gravity gave place to a mathematical system that makes two stars revolve one another. “Laws” aren’t physical things, obviously, they are descriptions of what we see. These arguments (Pro’s) have no relevance.Finally, talking about all processes and phenomena that occur in the universe, Pro says: "The chance that any of these exist is unlikely." I want to ask: how do we know that it is unlikely? Let's say that I create a world with life inside a glass sphere. Let's say gravity in this sphere makes objects go up. How could a man inside prove that it is more probable that he have another kind of gravity? What is the probability that he have a gravity that goes down instead? (Note that I talk about the ubiquitous laws of physics, not life) He can make a calculation by saying it's easier to have nothing instead of that, but, when have we even observed complete "nothing"? We never have, so far as we know it's a created concept. He cannot say that it is more or less likely that it exist or not, and if he did, I would like to ask what that probability is? What is the probability that gravity will or will not exist? Without a point of comparison, we cannot know, and we don't have other universes for comparison. We have never observed nothing, and we don't have other universes to compare this one with, so I cannot see how Pro can know the probabilities he claims to know.Pro has given clear examples of the universe being fragile and complex. He is still, however, in the same position in which he started at: we have a fragile, complex universe, that appears to me as designed, therefore a designer. He still hasn’t proved that such a supernatural designer exists, so I negate the resolution. He himself says: “CON will likely concede that these constants exist but could have been caused by natural forces, and that is true.” (And I repeat, I am not automatically ruling out a designer, but considering what is more likely) Until he proves the existence of a supernatural designer, one cannot accept that it is the best explanation for the universe.(1)http://science.nasa.gov... (2)http://www.space.com... (3)