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

Pro and I can at least agree that this debate is tiresome and repetitive. If Pro wants to attempt a compliment, then in future perhaps it would be better if he presented it so it didn't appear to be a back handed one.Anyway, my argument is not that all souls require a fine-tuned universe, as Pro implies in his association fallacy examples. My argument is the opposite, that not all intelligent life requires a fine-tuned universe.I think the main issue in this debate hunkers down to what is meant by "all/any". When I say all/any, I mean everything that falls under a certain category. In this instance the category is intelligent life, so if someone says that all intelligent life depends on a fine-tuned universe, then to me that means everything that is an intelligent life requires a fine-tuned universe. However, that is not what is meant by Pro and Craig. They are using "all/any" under a subcategory of intelligent life, a subcategory that just so happens to be the only type of intelligent life that such a fine-tuned universe could produce. The argument is special pleading and begs the question, and I also think it is dishonest and underhand to use the term "all/any" when it doesn't cover all/any intelligent life.If I was to use the fine-tuned argument, I would not refer to all/any intelligent life being dependent on a fine-tuned universe. I would simply refer to the intelligent life that is dependent on a fine-tuned universe, and be clear from the start that there are other types of intelligent life that don't require a fine-tuned universe.I am very confused by how Pro answered my question(s). He says that human intelligence is dependent on a fine-tuned universe, but a mind/soul intelligence isn't. I find this totally contradictory. Pro wants to have his cake and eat it here. I fail to see what the difference is between human intelligence and mind/soul intelligence, considering humans have minds (and apparently souls). If you believe that you can go on to live an eternal life external to the fine-tuned universe, then that part of you must manifest inside the fine-tuned universe, otherwise how can you label the external you you?As far as I can deduce from what Pro believes, the mind/soul intelligence of a human does manifest within the fine-tuned universe, but doesn't depend on the fine-tuned universe to exist. So what is it exactly that constitutes human "life" here? Is it the physical body? Is a physical body really a life when it's without a mind, because as far as I'm concerned a physical body is just a corpse if there is no mind harboured inside it.What I actually think the fine-tuned argument is arguing for is not the requirement of a fine-tuned universe for intelligent life, but the requirement of a fine-tuned universe for a physical vehicle to exist for an intelligent life to be housed in. If this is wrong, perhaps Pro would clarify what it is about a human life that is physically intelligent instead of mentally intelligent.Anyway, to conclude, I don't think this debate has got where it needs to go yet. There are still uncovered avenues to be traversed, and with this being the last round, these can't be covered in this debate. I am disappointed with how this debate has gone, but I think that is mainly down to this refutation of the fine-tuned argument being a relatively rare one, and therefore a lot has had to have been clarified and understood on both sides. Due to this, I don't claim any victory with regards to the debate, but nor do I admit any defeat. This is simply a case that is still open.I hope that Jacob has enjoyed this debate, even though it has been frustrating for both sides. It has been entertaining and insightful for me personally, and I thank Jacob for taking part in it. Hopefully we cross paths in the future, and perhaps come to a better understanding in future discussions.Thanks to all for reading.Rubberneck