The fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional, intelligent designer of the cosmos.

I will arguing that the fine-tuning argument fails to demonstrate an intentional, intelligent designer of the cosmos and life itself (the argument also plants the seeds of it's own refutation). First, I will review each premise to see if they can really add up to a solid argument in favor of intelligent design. Attacking The Premises"P1: The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it. "Lets say I was to accept this as fact, this does not entail that life as we don't know it could not exist. You may ask yourself, what reason is there to assume that life could arise if the constants were different? Well, we know of organisms called Extremophiles which can survive under conditions that we previously thought life couldn't thrive. Even though the current physical constants are necessary conditions which need to be in place for these particular observed Extremophiles to exist, it still shows that there is much about life within universes we are very ignorant of, and it's very likely that another form of life could have easily formed if some of physical constants were somehow different (maybe life that wouldn't be considered "biological" by our standards). "P2: Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable. "There is absolutely no evidence that their is a "wide range" of physical constants, even if there is a range, it has not been shown how wide that range actually is in reality. If determinism is true, then these specific constants are necessary and had to turn out the way they did due to predetermining factors at each point in time durring the development of the universe. "P3: Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one. "Determinism being true is one explanation (Now, I am just mentioning determinism to undermine the necessity of other contants being possible). Regardless, lets say we were playing bridge and I got dealt a random hand. The odds of me getting that exact hand are 1 and 635 billion, in fact, the odds of me getting any combination of a 13 card hand is 1 in 635 billion. Of course, nobody would receive a random hand and say the deck must have been stacked because the odds of getting that exact hand were 1 in 635 billion. Some combination of physical constants had to arise, just like some combination of cards had to be dealt when playing bridge. The odds of any other constants would surely not be anymore staggering than the odds of getting the constants we have now. Also remember, there is no good reason to assume that this is the only type of life that could have arisen out if the constants were different (assuming they could be, which I'm not sure can been demonstrated). "P4: The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he "fine-tuned" those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems. "Ironically, the Fine-tuning argument is not an argument for intelligent design, but rather an argument against intelligent design. The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning. To understand this, an analogy may be useful. Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as “fine-tuning” in the sense given by the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”. But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation. An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precarity of a system’s functioning is not evidence of intelligent design, but rather of natural law. This is of course, assuming the validity of the first two premises (which of course I do not, as I have pointed out the huge problems with those assumptions). Also, the fine-tuning argument leads no credence to the idea of an omnipotent God. The death trap universe we live in leads no credence to the idea of an all-loving creator either (I will dig into both of these issues further). "P5: But such a being as described in (δ) is what people mean by "God. ""As I have shown, such a being has not been logically demonstrated. "C: Hence, there is good evidence that God exists. "Since the argument rests on baseless assumptions that are most likely false, and actually doesn't fit well with an intelligent design, we can dismiss the conclusion. Additional objections to the fine-tuning argument for intelligent designThe universe is designed for non-life and deathIf one says the universe is fine-tuned for life, one must also admit that it's fine-tuned for death. It seems strange that an intelligent being who fine-tuned the universe so much just so we could be here, would also fine-tune it just as much to make the universe a death trap for us. Universe. Most planet orbits are unstable. Less than 3% of gas clouds actually make a star. Most places kill life instantly - heat -radiation - cold. Galaxy orbits bring you near a supernova. Our galaxy will collide with Andromeda. Universe will wind down to oblivionHumans. Aggressive Childhood Leukemia, Hemophilia, Sickle Cell Anemia. Multiple Sclerosis, Epilepsy, Parkinson's, ALS. Narrow view of the electromagnetic spectrum. Vision loss with age - teeth fall out - Alzheimer's - Prostate Cancer. Exhale most of the oxygen we inhale. Warm blooded must eat constantly. We are practically comatose for 1/3 of our lives sleeping. We cannot detect magnetic fields, ionizing radiation fields, Radon. We cannot smell or taste CO, CH4, CO2, but if you breath them in, you are dead. [1]It seems that elements of randomness mixed with intricate complexity and order produced the environment we live in which gave rise to us. However, it seems unlikely than an intelligence with the intent to create us had anything to do with it, due to death traps we face constantly. This would be like breeding a horse for the purpose (lets say, a horse race) just to booby trap the entire pathway in front of your horse, and this is not something any intelligence would do. Someone could accuse me of trying to "understand the mind of God", but that's exactly what the opposition does when they call God all-loving and apply all of these attributes and wills to God. So if the opposition is to avoid special pleading, it's clear that speculating about God is reasonable. Omnipotence and Fine-TuningIt seems that the idea of a universe being "fine-tuned" does not really sit well with the idea of an omnipotent God. Why would an omnipotent God be bound by any fine-tuning? An omnipotent could God could create a universe where any conditions would allow for life as we know it, instead of having to place the Earth just in the right place where life could arise ect. (an omnipotent being shouldn't have set any conditions to be "just right", because this means God is bound by the conditions being set which contradicts omnipotence). ConclusionThe reasons for rejecting the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design, are stronger than the reasons to accept the fine-tuning argument for design. Unless my opponent shows otherwise, the resolution has been affirmed. Source(s) [1] Video . http://www.youtube.com...PS. Sorry, not many sources were needed.