The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

---Conduct--- My opponent is well aware of the conduct violation. He argues that the instigator should not get the last word, but even if this is true; he didn't have to accept the debate if he did not like the rules. I disagree with his sentiments however because a person rebutting an argument should always go second, and a person presenting the argument should go first in order to give the opponent something substantial to rebut in the first place. Either way, the rules were clear and were violated without respect for them. --- Black Hole Generator Revisited--- My opponent says that just because there is a possibility of the universe being a black hole generator doesn't mean there is any evidence of this. This is correct, but of course, it is a straw-man. I argue that this possibility, which doesn't seem intuitively implausible, casts sufficient doubt on the confidence we should have in the design hypothesis as it is another explanation for the values of the physical parameters. This doesn't mean that the design hypothesis is false, but it does mean that until the black hole generator hypothesis is ruled out as implausible; we have no good reason to accept the design hypothesis. So unless my opponent can rule this out as implausible, and show that the the physical parameters cannot be due to chance or physical necessity; the argument for the explanatory superiority of design cannot even get off of the ground showing that I have cast sufficient doubt on the soundness of the argument. That is my burden in the debate which has been fulfilled. Pro then argues that even if the universe is perfect for black hole generation does not mean this is the purposeful effect. This, once more, is a straw-man. I never said the purpose (which implies teleology) of the universe was black hole generation, just that it could be its main function. Also, the same type of argument can be applied to life; just because the universe allowed life doesn't mean it is the "purpose". Also, tulips can be turned into something else, so it being the main "end game" or function doesn't seem very plausible. Matter, energy, and not even time can escape a black hole, and the parts of a black hole cannot be re-arranged to be something else. So the universe being a black hole generator may not be arbitrary. Even if it is, the point is that the universe may be, strictly speaking, something else. For example, if microorganisms on my arm could think, they would look at there surroundings and not have not have the slightest clue that they are part of a human body; they would just give an name to the strange place they live, like "universe". So, perhaps, because we are so small in comparison to the universe we don't know what the universe actually is, strictly speaking. The black whole generator identity theory is just one hypothesis that we can conceptualize, perhaps it goes deeper than that and we simply cannot comprehend what the universe really is at bottom. What I am arguing is that unless it can be shown that it is implausible for the universe to inherently be something which forces the constants and physical parameters to the take the values they do due to the necessity of the universe's nature; then we have sufficient doubt that design is the best explanation for why the parameters take the values they do. ---Pro's Third Point--- My opponent is talking about how the universe being a black hole generator is arbitrary. However, I already addressed this by pointing out a crucial difference between black holes and things like tulips and iPhones. My opponent claims that even if the physical parameters are perfect for black hole generation that wouldn't explain why or how they have the values they do. However, it self-evidently does. If the universe is a black hole generator by its very nature then any physical values which didn't allow for black holes to be generated would be logically impossible. This because we would have a situation where that which generates black holes (a black hole generator) doesn't generate black holes; which is a logical contradiction. So if the universe is fundamentally a black hole generator then the explanation as to why the physical parameters and constants have the values they do is logical necessity. This means the first premise of the fine-tuning argument is false even if the hypothesis I mentioned is false because there is a fourth option the proponent of the fine-tuning argument needs to rule out above and beyond physical necessity, chance and design; logical necessity. This makes the first premise of the fine-tuning argument a false-trichotomy. ---Is Design The Best Explanation?--- There is evidence that the universe generates black holes (this doesn't mean the universe is a black hole generator by its very nature, but it is still some evidence at least), but there is no evidence of any designer. Any designer of the cosmos would have to transcend the cosmos, but our instruments can only measure what's inside of the cosmos. So the fact that we have evidence that the universe generates black holes, but no evidence of a designer supports the black hole generator hypothesis more. Also, the design explanation just pushes the question up a level; who designed the designer? So it posits more problems that it solves. The design explanation violates Occam's Razor as well. The black hole generator hypothesis can explain the values of the physical parameters by positing: (i) The universe However, the design hypothesis requires: (i) The universe (ii) A transcendent designer of the universe Since the design hypothesis makes an unneeded assumption by adding an entity above and behind the universe; Occam's Razor favours the black hole generator hypothesis. --- Has Pro Met His Burden?--- Pro has not ruled out logical necessity, physical necessity, or chance as plausible options; he just bare-asserted that the design explanation was better without even a shred of argumentation. I showed that the fine-tuning argument presented does not succeed, as the first premise is a false-trichotomy; logical necessity needs to be ruled out. Thus, I have met my burden of proof in this debate. The resolution has been negated.