The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

---Conduct--- My opponent has blatantly ignored the rules I laid out. He didn't make a first argument in the first round, and he insists on having the last word even though that goes against the rules I outlined. If my opponent didn't like the rules he did not have to accept the debate, and that would have been fine. However, knowing the rules of the debate and accepting knowing full well you will violate them, is like accepting a game of chess knowing the rules and insisting you are going to take out your opponent's King with your Knight by moving the piece diagonally. This disregard for the rules is self-evidently a conduct violation so I urge voters to take this into consideration while voting. Thank you. ---Black Hole Generator/ Universe Identity Hypothesis--- Broadly speaking, what I sit on in my living room to watch television is a piece of furniture. However, strictly speaking, it is a couch. Broadly speaking, the place I live is a building. However, strictly speaking, it is a house. Broadly speaking, the item in my right pocket is an electronic device. However, strictly speaking, it is smart phone. We could perhaps get even more strict (the smart phone is an iPhone) but the point is still made. Certain things are broadly speaking A, and strictly speaking B. Perhaps the physical structure we inhabit is broadly speaking, a universe, but strictly speaking, a black hole generator. A black hole generator is that which has a main function of maximizing the the generation of black holes. Perhaps this is what the universe inherently, intrinsically, and fundamentally is. There are good reasons to believe this universe is a black hole generator, as Richard Carrier points out: "This has been demonstrated by Dr. Lee Smolin, who showed that this universe is the best possible universe you could ever design for maximizing the production of black holes. There's more black holes in this universe you can come up with by mixing up the physical constants or the number of subatomic particles... The number of subatomic particles and their properties are exactly what they would need to be to maximize black hole production." - Richard Carrier I take it a step further and posit that perhaps what we call the universe is identical with a black hole generator. Which would mean that any time you implied the term "our universe" you could switch out "our universe" with "black hole generator". If this is true, then we have an explanation for why the physical parameters are the way they are without need to invoke a designer. The reason why the universe is life permitting, could be, that the universe is a black hole generator. In order to maximize black hole production there needs to be lots of stars that can perhaps collapse into black holes one day. The more stars we have means the more solar systems which means the higher chance for life. So, it's possible, that the apparent fine-tuning is due to logical necessity. If the physical parameters were some other way in which stars couldn't form, for example, then that would mean there would be no stars to collapse into black holes meaning we would have a black hole generator which does not generate black holes (which violates the logical Law of Identity). So if we were to conceive of a universe having non-black hole generating features we would actually be conceiving of a different universe. So the first premise of the fine-tuning argument is false as it doesn't exhaust all the options; it is a false-trichotomy... Logical necessity is a forth option. In order for the logical necessity to be a non-viable option then the proponent of fine-tuning would have to rule out the black hole generator/ universe identity hypothesis without begging the question. If the universe is inherently identical with a black hole generator then clearly the constants physical parameters would have values that allow for life as life is a bi-product of a black hole generator because a black hole generator entails lots of solar systems with the potential for life. Now, I am not arguing that this hypothesis is true, just that it must be shown false in order for the design explanation to go through and succeed. Thus, until my opponent does this; the fine-tuning argument does not succeed.