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

Sorry about my putrid forfeit"P1: This particular combination of physical constants within the universe which are capable of sustaining life are necessary or have a necessary part (the physical necessity of being capable of sustaining life over other conceivable constants)."That is not true, it is not necessary for the universe to subsist with these constants, only for our planets life."P2: If life lying in this very narrow range of constants was due to an intelligent designer of the cosmos, then this particular range of physical constants in the universe which are capable of sustaining life would be contingent to this intelligent designer (Thus, this particular combination would not be necessary or have any necessary part but would be completely contingent to this being). "That's like saying aliens are jaguars.Not true, an intelligent designer would not have to design their creation logically or conditional. Especially if they are all powerful, they can make it as unneccessarily complex and unconvient as they want."P3: This particular combination of physical constants within the universe are not contingent (from P1).C: Life lying in this very narrow range of constants is not due to an intelligent designer [1]"You can't apply rules of logic, convience, and neccessity to the illogical, unconvient, and unneccesary!!! "The Theist could deny Premise 1, but then they would have to deny the entire fine-tuning argument for Theism. If the combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it, then these constants are necessary for life, and no other constants could produce life. The Theist could deny Premise 2, but of course they would have to deny the Argument from Contingency for Theism. So, it seems that the fine-tuning argument actually supports Atheism over Theism, and it does not successfully demonstrate an intelligent designer. "Maybe I misunderstood p1?If thats what you meant then, you are still wrong. Just because they are neccessary for life and the only ones capable of SUSTAINING life, does not mean they can and others can't PRODUCE life."Conclusion An extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, and is exactly what we would expect to find if Atheism were true. However, this is not what we would expect if Theism were true, and the argument fails to demonstrate an intelligent designer of the cosmos, and life itself. "Who cares? Only atheist and theist care, because its all about gods? They are the only superstition, eh?Your first sentence I can not fully understand, so I can not argue against the conclusion accurately. Sorry..."Unless my opponent can: 1) Logically rebut the Fine-Tuning Argument for Atheism"See my rebut for premise 2! Its basically the same concept2) Logically rebut my objections to the premises of the Fine-Tuning argument for Theism (of course, after refuting the Fine-Tuning Argument For Atheism)Already done!and 3) Argue that the Fine-Tuning Argument, actually supports intelligent design B*tch, what you think I be playin? You think I be stoopid up in here? pssh, you ain't know squat fool.This is how its done, read real careful now y'all:First all, just who you think I am? Johnny Depp, Tommy Lee Jones, Fransico? I'm a brazilian model, that means I'm right by default...Second of all.. No, second of ALL... Okay to the argument:The fine-tuning argument (what a b*tch, I tell yah) maybe stooooopid man, but that don mean nuthin!Brotha, have you ever seen a three inch tall polyatomic dinosaurus flex? They don't play man, they be eat'in fresh of the skiddle.Let meh tell yah something...My minivan pull over and my crew pulls out, we ain't got no woman but sure as hell a lot of clout.Brotha, I love yah man. Me and you man, go way back. Hell, I remember seeing you all the way in round 1 brotha.Okay to the argument for sure this time:The fine-tuning... argument...Supports the intelligent design because... becuz... it be an intelligent design argument, there for it is in support(or favor if you will) of the intelligent design argument. "The fine tuning argument states that these values(constants) occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth." Iron Chariots^Proof^ This is obviously an argument in support of intelligent design....Then I believe I have the upper hand in this debate (once more, I apologise for any misunderstanding regarding the "many levels" typo). "Yeah, I just copy paste yo arguments...