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

Thanks Con, for the debate. I am glad to accept this invitation and hope that it will be a short debate helping many to gather some good and interesting insight. The argument is very simple that he offered. I don’t remember ever seeing this objection so I am very surprised and amused by it.If he insists to defend his main argument that the fine-tuning argument is self-refuting in form as he explained. “If God is an intelligent life and doesn't exist within the confines of a fine-tuned universe, then it follows that a fine-tuned universe is not needed for intelligent life to exist and therefore life/intelligent life can exist without a fine-tuned universe, ergo the argument refutes itself.”And “If God is an intelligent life and doesn't exist within the confines of a fine-tuned universe, then it follows that a fine-tuned universe is not needed for intelligent life to exist and therefore life/intelligent life can exist without a fine-tuned universe, ergo the argument refutes itself.”First of all this objection would be a straw-man attack on the original teleological argument. 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. Con recognizes the classical Christian definition or nature of God- uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial being. Thus the objection is very deliberate in attacking straw-man. God by definition cannot begin to exist or caused to exist in a special material universe.Note that the original argument is not what he assumes that: Every living being necessarily requires fine-tuned universe” Secondly, he is equivocating between two different living beings. A) God the changeless, timeless, uncaused, immaterial being. B) Created, caused, material and contingent living beings: Organic life, the organisms.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 https://en.wikipedia.org...Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association: John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists. Jane is good at mathematics. Jane is dyslexic. Therefore, all dyslexic people are good at mathematics. 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. 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. Let me share the original argument of WLC. Teleological Argument. We may formulate a design argument as follows:1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.3. Therefore, it is due to design.What is meant by "fine-tuning"? The physical laws of nature, when given mathematical expression, contain various constants, such as the gravitational constant, whose values are independent of the laws themselves; moreover, there are certain arbitrary quantities which are simply put in as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the initial low entropy condition of the universe. By "fine-tuning" one means that the actual values assumed by the constants and quantities in question are such that small deviations from those values would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is exquisitely narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values.Laypeople might think that if the constants and quantities had assumed different values, then other forms of life might well have evolved. But this is not the case. By "life" scientists mean that property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. The point is that in order for the universe to permit life so-defined, whatever form organisms might take, the constants and quantities have to be incomprehensibly fine-tuned. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve.Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...We can clearly see that Con has made serious errors first a straw man and second it is a fundamental equivocation and association fallacy. And I hope he concedes with my explanation on those errors and agree with me so that we can easily conclude the debate.