The finely tuned universe leads to a deduction that higher consciousness exists

I am afraid almost all of the arguments used by Pro in round three are red herrings(1) and do not show how a higher consciousness can be deduced from the observed fine tuning of the physical constants. Statements like "... the higher consciousness communicates to humans through the use of coincidences.", are based on the assumption that a higher consciousness exists and do nothing to explain how it's existence can be deduced from the observed fine tuning. In this third and final round of the debate I will restate my argument that a higher consciousness leads to an infinite regression. Then I will address some of Pro's red herrings. A higher consciousness cannot be deduced from the fine tuning of the universe because such a deduction leads to an inescapable infinite regression. The argument for fine tuning goes something like this; For human consciousness to arise, the value of the physical constants must be what they are, or the universe would not support life. Therefore some fine tuning of the constants must have occurred. Proposing a higher consciousness to actively do the tuning begs the question; How were the constants of this higher consciousness' universe tuned? By a higher-higher consciousness? Each "answer" leads to the same question, into infinity. A real explanation of how the fine tuning of our universe occurred would lead to new and different questions. Now to address some of the red herrings; Pro: "...the higher consciousness communicates to humans through the use of coincidences. Almost the entire population ignores these communications not because they are stupid, but because they have not been taught how to interpret them." Almost the entire population ignores communication by coincidence, because coincidences do not communicate any information. The earth quake example on the link you provided(2) is a good example of a coincidence, but what information is being communicated? That we should stay out of earthquake prone areas on that one day of the year? Pro: "Arguments for and against intelligent design… By accepting both side of the discussion and looking for the balance point…" This is on topic so it is not a red herring, but it is a "false middle" fallacy(3). Without some nonstandard defining of "intelligent" or "design" this is an either-or debate. Both cannot be correct, and to propose finding a "balance point" between the two would be like finding a balance point between someone who thinks arsenic is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet, and someone who does not.(3) Would using a small amount of arsenic be a good balance point? Pro, when criticizing scientist's possible explanations of fine tuning; "...in each of these solutions, the beginnings of life and consciousness has not been explained" We are not debating how life or consciousness began. This debate is about what occurred billions of years before life began, so no explanation would include the origin of life. That question is one for biologists, not physicists to answer. In his conclusion Pro wrote; "I don't have a good answer to this question. The only suggestion I can make here is that we are asking the wrong questions, or we have an incomplete view of the universe." I could not put it any better myself, and I agree wholeheartedly with this entire statement. Maybe we should reserve judgment on the question of how the universe was fine tuned until someone comes up with a testable hypothesis (so far no one has), or maybe no fine tuning has occurred at all, and the constants of our universe have the value they do because no other value is possible. We may be asking the wrong question. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring Check out some of the "External Links" for better explanations and examples. (2) http://www.globalcoincidence.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...